Consider the following statements regarding Human rights violations and the role of the NHRC:
1. Under Section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the NHRC is empowered to seek a report from the Central Government regarding complaints of human rights violations by members of the armed forces.
2. The Supreme Court in the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) case held that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is not unconstitutional and its validity can be examined in specific instances.
3. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was first enacted as an ordinance in 1942 to address the Quit India Movement and was later adopted by the Parliament in 1958 to cover the North-Eastern states.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 19 of the 1993 Act mandates the NHRC to seek reports from the Central Government regarding allegations of human rights violations by armed forces. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 1998 Naga People's Movement case upheld the constitutional validity of AFSPA while emphasizing that the act's application must be subject to judicial review in specific instances of abuse. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the 1942 ordinance was indeed promulgated to suppress the Quit India Movement, the AFSPA currently in force was enacted by Parliament in 1958, not as a direct adoption of the 1942 ordinance, but as a distinct legislative response to the insurgency in the North-Eastern states.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural requirements for prosecution sanction under AFSPA:
1. Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, provides that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
2. The Supreme Court of India, in the 2016 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India case, observed that the protection under Section 6 of AFSPA is not an absolute immunity from trial for members of the armed forces.
3. The 1958 Act includes provisions for the establishment of special civilian tribunals to oversee prosecution requests, and the first such tribunal was constituted in Manipur in 1962 to handle pending cases.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 6 of AFSPA, 1958, mandates prior sanction from the Central Government for any legal proceedings against personnel acting under the Act. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 2016 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association case clarified that AFSPA does not grant absolute immunity, and the armed forces are not exempt from investigation into allegations of excessive force. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1958 Act contains no provisions for the establishment of special civilian tribunals, and no such tribunal was ever constituted in Manipur in 1962.
Consider the following statements regarding Jeevan Reddy Committee report on repeal or amendment:
1. The committee submitted its report to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in June 2005, recommending the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.
2. The Government of India constituted a five-member committee headed by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy in November 2004 to review the provisions of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958.
3. The Jeevan Reddy Committee was established under the mandate of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution to evaluate the administrative feasibility of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statements 1 and 2 are correct as the Government of India indeed constituted the five-member committee in November 2004, which subsequently submitted its report in June 2005 recommending the repeal of AFSPA. Statement 3 is incorrect because the committee was not established under the 10th Schedule (which pertains to anti-defection law), but was instead set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to review the Act's provisions across all states where it was in force, not just Jammu and Kashmir.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction of military courts vs civil courts in AFSPA areas:
1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was first enacted as an Ordinance in 1942 to address civil unrest, and its subsequent 1958 version incorporated the specific judicial review protocols established by the 1950 Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, provides that no prosecution or legal proceeding can be instituted against any person in respect of anything done in exercise of powers conferred by the Act except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
3. The Supreme Court of India in the 2016 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association case observed that the immunity granted under Section 6 of the AFSPA does not provide a blanket protection against criminal investigation into allegations of fake encounters.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the AFSPA originated from the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, promulgated by the British to suppress the Quit India Movement, and the 1958 Act does not incorporate judicial review protocols from the 1950 CrPC. Statement 2 is correct as Section 6 of the AFSPA explicitly mandates prior sanction from the Central Government before initiating legal proceedings against personnel acting under the Act. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 2016 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association case clarified that the immunity under Section 6 is not absolute and does not shield personnel from investigations into allegations of extrajudicial killings or fake encounters.
Consider the following statements regarding Conflict between civil administration and military authority:
1. The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, provides for the establishment of special courts in regions notified by the Governor, and it allows the military to conduct summary trials for civil offences.
2. The 1997 Supreme Court ruling in the case of the Manipur Human Rights Commission vs. Union of India established that military personnel are exempt from civilian criminal prosecution for actions taken during counter-insurgency operations.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contains provisions in Section 45 that offer protection to members of the armed forces from arrest, and this protection extends to actions performed during private disputes.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, does not authorize the military to conduct summary trials for civil offences, as judicial power remains vested in the judiciary. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court, notably in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998), clarified that military personnel are not immune from civilian prosecution and can be tried under the CrPC if prior sanction from the Central Government is obtained. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 45 of the CrPC provides protection to armed forces personnel only for acts done in the 'discharge of their official duties,' explicitly excluding protection for actions performed during private disputes.
Consider the following statements regarding AFSPA 1958 legislative history and constitutional validity:
1. The 1986 amendment to the AFSPA expanded the definition of disturbed areas to include regions experiencing maritime security threats, allowing the Indian Navy to exercise powers under the Act in coastal zones.
2. The 2005 Jeevan Reddy Committee, appointed to review the AFSPA, recommended the repeal of the Act and the incorporation of appropriate provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
3. The AFSPA was extended to the state of Tripura in 1997 to combat insurgency, and the state government subsequently revoked the Act in 2015 following a decline in reported security incidents.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the 2005 Jeevan Reddy Committee, established to review AFSPA, recommended its repeal and the integration of essential provisions into the UAPA to better balance security with human rights. Statement 1 is incorrect because AFSPA does not apply to maritime zones or the Indian Navy; it is strictly limited to land-based 'disturbed areas' under the jurisdiction of the Army or Central Armed Police Forces. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Tripura was under AFSPA from 1997, the state government revoked it in 2015 not due to a decline in incidents, but rather because the state government decided to withdraw it based on the improved security situation, though the Act was actually repealed in 2015 by the state cabinet after 18 years of enforcement.
Consider the following statements regarding Jeevan Reddy Committee report on repeal or amendment:
1. The report suggested that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, could be amended to incorporate appropriate provisions to handle internal security threats.
2. Justice Jeevan Reddy recommended that the grievances of the local population should be addressed through the establishment of Grievance Cells in each district where the armed forces are deployed.
3. The committee observed that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act had become a symbol of oppression and an object of hate in the North-Eastern states.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended repealing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) while suggesting that its essential provisions be incorporated into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to maintain internal security. The committee also proposed the creation of district-level Grievance Cells to address public complaints against security forces and explicitly characterized AFSPA as a 'symbol of oppression' that alienated the local population in the North-East. All three statements are factually accurate reflections of the committee's landmark report submitted to the Union Government.
Consider the following statements regarding International humanitarian law and the enforcement of AFSPA:
1. The Supreme Court judgment in the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights case of 1997 upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA, noting that the act is consistent with the Hague Convention of 1907 regarding land warfare.
2. Under the provisions of the AFSPA, the power to declare an area as disturbed rests with the Governor of a state, a process that aligns with the notification procedures outlined in the 1949 Red Cross mandate for neutral territories.
3. The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act of 1976 provides for the establishment of special tribunals, and these bodies are empowered to adjudicate violations of international humanitarian law committed by state actors.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while the 1997 Supreme Court judgment upheld AFSPA's constitutionality, it did not link the Act to the Hague Convention of 1907. Statement 2 is incorrect as the power to declare an area 'disturbed' under Section 3 of AFSPA lies with the Central Government or the Governor of the State/Administrator of the Union Territory, and this is a domestic legal provision unrelated to the 1949 Red Cross mandates. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, establishes special courts for the speedy trial of offences in disturbed areas, but these courts do not have the mandate to adjudicate violations of international humanitarian law by state actors.
Consider the following statements regarding Santosh Hegde Commission recommendations on AFSPA:
1. The Santosh Hegde Commission suggested that the central government should consider amending AFSPA to ensure that the armed forces are not immune to judicial scrutiny in cases of human rights violations.
2. The commission report emphasized that the armed forces are expected to follow the standard operating procedures issued by the Ministry of Defence even while operating under AFSPA.
3. The Supreme Court constituted the commission following a writ petition filed by the Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association Manipur.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
In 2013, the Supreme Court appointed the Santosh Hegde Commission to investigate six specific cases of alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur following a PIL by the Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM). The Commission concluded that the victims were not terrorists and that the armed forces misused AFSPA, recommending that the Act be reviewed to ensure accountability and that soldiers must strictly adhere to the Ministry of Defence's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) even in disturbed areas. Since all three statements accurately reflect the Commission's findings and the context of its formation, all are correct.
Consider the following statements regarding International humanitarian law and the enforcement of AFSPA:
1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was enacted in 1958, initially granting extraordinary powers to the military in the disturbed areas of Assam and Manipur.
2. The 1949 Geneva Conventions include provisions for internal security operations, and the Indian government ratified these protocols in 1976 to govern the conduct of forces under AFSPA.
3. Section 4 of the AFSPA allows commissioned officers to use lethal force, a provision that mirrors the rules of engagement found in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the AFSPA was enacted in 1958 to address the insurgency in Assam and Manipur. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Geneva Conventions primarily govern international armed conflicts, and India has not ratified the 1977 Additional Protocols, which contain specific provisions for non-international conflicts. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 4 of AFSPA grants broad powers based on domestic law, which has been criticized by human rights bodies for lacking the strict proportionality and necessity standards mandated by international humanitarian law.
Consider the following statements regarding Santosh Hegde Commission recommendations on AFSPA:
1. In its findings, the commission noted that the victims in the investigated cases were not associated with any insurgent groups.
2. Justice Santosh Hegde headed the three-member committee that examined six specific cases of alleged fake encounters in the state of Manipur.
3. The committee report submitted to the Supreme Court in 2013 highlighted the need for a mechanism to ensure accountability for actions taken under AFSPA.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
The Santosh Hegde Commission, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2013 to investigate six specific cases of alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur, concluded that the victims were not insurgents but civilians, thereby challenging the impunity under AFSPA. The committee's report explicitly criticized the misuse of the Act, emphasizing that AFSPA should not be a 'carte blanche' for security forces and recommending a robust accountability mechanism to ensure that actions taken under the law are subject to judicial review. All three statements are factually accurate as they reflect the core findings and the mandate of the committee established to address human rights concerns in conflict-prone areas.
Consider the following statements regarding Human rights violations and the role of the NHRC:
1. Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, outlines the functions of the Commission, which include reviewing the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution for the protection of human rights.
2. The NHRC is restricted from directly investigating allegations against armed forces personnel and instead follows a procedure of calling for reports and making recommendations to the Ministry of Defence.
3. The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, increased the number of members in the NHRC, allowing for greater representation of experts in the field of human rights.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 12 of the 1993 Act mandates the NHRC to review constitutional and legal safeguards for human rights. Statement 2 is correct because, under Section 19 of the Act, the NHRC cannot directly investigate armed forces but must seek a report from the Central Government and then make recommendations. Statement 3 is correct as the 2019 Amendment increased the number of members from two to three, ensuring broader expertise by including persons with knowledge of human rights.
Consider the following statements regarding Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance vs Act:
1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, received the assent of the President on September 11, 1958, following its introduction in the Lok Sabha by the then Home Minister G.B. Pant.
2. The 1942 Ordinance granted the military the authority to use force against any person acting in contravention of law, a power that was subsequently incorporated into the 1950 Constitution under Article 355.
3. Section 3 of the 1958 Act empowers the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory to declare the whole or any part of such State or Union Territory as a disturbed area.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the AFSPA was enacted in 1958 following its introduction by Home Minister G.B. Pant to address the Naga insurgency. Statement 3 is correct because Section 3 of the 1958 Act explicitly grants the Governor or Administrator the authority to notify an area as 'disturbed' if they believe it is in a dangerous condition. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 1942 Ordinance was a colonial-era measure promulgated by the British to suppress the Quit India Movement, and its provisions were not incorporated into Article 355 of the Constitution, which instead mandates the Union's duty to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of search and seizure without warrant:
1. Section 4(d) of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, empowers a commissioned officer or warrant officer to enter and search any premises without a warrant to recover any person wrongfully restrained or confined.
2. Under the 1958 Act, the power to search and seize without a warrant is exercisable in areas declared as disturbed under Section 3 by the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory.
3. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, was modeled after the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, which was promulgated by the British administration to address the Quit India Movement in the North-East region.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 4(d) of the AFSPA, 1958, explicitly authorizes commissioned or warrant officers to enter and search premises without a warrant to rescue wrongfully confined persons. Statement 2 is correct because the Act applies only to areas notified as 'disturbed' under Section 3, a power vested in the Governor, Administrator, or the Central Government. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the 1958 Act was indeed modeled after the 1942 Ordinance, that Ordinance was promulgated by the British to suppress the Quit India Movement across the entire country, not specifically to target the North-East region.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of AFSPA in the North-Eastern states vs Jammu and Kashmir:
1. The 1990 Jammu and Kashmir legislation was introduced during the tenure of Governor Jagmohan and follows the same administrative notification process as the 1958 Act for the Union Territory of Ladakh.
2. The Supreme Court's 2016 verdict in the Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association case established that the AFSPA provides immunity from prosecution for actions taken in areas notified by the Ministry of Defence.
3. The 1958 Act was extended to the state of Manipur following the 1972 reorganization of the North-Eastern region, which aligned the act with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the J&K AFSPA (1990) was enacted by the Governor under the J&K Governor's Act, while the 1958 Act is a Central legislation, and Ladakh is now a Union Territory under different administrative oversight. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court's 2016 verdict clarified that AFSPA does not provide blanket immunity, ruling that any allegation of extrajudicial killing must be investigated regardless of the area's notification status. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1958 Act was extended to Manipur in 1958 via an ordinance and subsequent Act, and it operates independently of the Sixth Schedule, which deals with autonomous district councils rather than military powers.
Consider the following statements regarding Legal immunity and the doctrine of sovereign immunity:
1. The doctrine of Act of State provides a defense for the government in civil litigation, and it was codified under Article 300 of the Constitution to protect the Union of India from all claims arising out of the deployment of the military in border regions.
2. The 1997 Supreme Court ruling in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA while establishing a civilian oversight committee to review the necessity of the Act in every district every six months.
3. Under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950, court-martial proceedings are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts, which allows for the review of findings related to the legal immunity of officers during counter-insurgency operations.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 300 deals with suits and proceedings by or against the Government of India, but it does not codify the 'Act of State' doctrine to grant blanket immunity for military deployments. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the Supreme Court upheld AFSPA in the Naga People's Movement case, it did not mandate a civilian oversight committee for six-monthly district reviews; instead, it emphasized that the power to declare an area 'disturbed' should be exercised with periodic reviews by the state or central government. Statement 3 is incorrect because court-martial proceedings under the Army Act, 1950, are not subject to the appellate jurisdiction of High Courts; judicial review is limited to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts (Article 226) or the Supreme Court (Article 32) on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or violation of fundamental rights.
Consider the following statements regarding Comparison of AFSPA with TADA and POTA provisions:
1. The 1958 AFSPA provides for the creation of designated courts to try cases involving armed forces personnel, mirroring the specialized judicial structure introduced by the 1985 TADA.
2. The 1987 TADA legislation established a specialized review committee for disturbed areas, which serves as the primary oversight body for the declaration of such zones under the 1958 AFSPA.
3. Judicial oversight of AFSPA operations is governed by the same evidentiary standards as the POTA, where intercepted communication is treated as primary evidence during trial proceedings.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All statements are incorrect because AFSPA (1958) does not establish designated courts or specialized review committees, nor does it share the evidentiary standards of POTA (2002) regarding intercepted communications. AFSPA grants special powers to armed forces in disturbed areas without the judicial framework of TADA (1985), which specifically created designated courts for terrorism-related offenses. Furthermore, the declaration of 'disturbed areas' under AFSPA is an executive decision by the Central or State government, not subject to the oversight of a TADA-style review committee, and AFSPA operations remain governed by standard criminal procedure rather than the specialized evidentiary rules of POTA.
Consider the following statements regarding Legal immunity and the doctrine of sovereign immunity:
1. The doctrine of sovereign immunity in India is limited by the Supreme Court judgment in Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965), which distinguishes between sovereign functions and non-sovereign functions of the state regarding vicarious liability.
2. Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, provides that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
3. The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, was enacted to provide for the speedy trial of offences in areas declared as disturbed, and it grants the judiciary the power to initiate suo motu investigations into the conduct of armed forces personnel.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Kasturilal judgment established that the state is not liable for torts committed by its employees during the exercise of sovereign functions, a principle still relevant in Indian jurisprudence. Statement 2 is correct because Section 6 of AFSPA mandates prior sanction from the Central Government for prosecuting personnel, acting as a statutory shield for actions taken in good faith. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, focuses on the speedy trial of offences in disturbed areas but does not grant the judiciary any power to initiate suo motu investigations into the conduct of armed forces personnel.
Consider the following statements regarding Jeevan Reddy Committee report on repeal or amendment:
1. The committee emphasized that the armed forces should operate under the overall control of the civil administration during internal security operations.
2. The report proposed that the deployment of armed forces in aid of civil power should be limited to a specific duration and subject to periodic review by the state government.
3. The 2005 report suggested that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act be replaced by the National Security Act of 1980 to provide a uniform legal framework for military operations across all border districts.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) correctly recommended that armed forces should operate under civil administration control and that their deployment must be time-bound with periodic reviews to ensure accountability. Statement 3 is incorrect because the committee actually recommended the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and proposed incorporating its essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), rather than replacing it with the National Security Act of 1980.
Consider the following statements regarding Supreme Court guidelines in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case:
1. The judgment provides that the central government can extend the disturbed area notification for a period of 12 months at a time, provided the state legislature has passed a resolution supporting the extension.
2. The 1998 guidelines clarify that the state police force acts under the operational command of the military during the period an area is notified under the 1958 Act.
3. The Supreme Court judgment observed that the armed forces have the legal authority to detain individuals for up to 30 days before handing them over to the local judicial magistrate.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court held that the Central Government is not required to seek the state legislature's concurrence to extend a 'disturbed area' notification under AFSPA. Statement 2 is incorrect as the guidelines emphasize that the armed forces must act in cooperation with the local civil administration, not that the state police operate under military command. Statement 3 is incorrect because the judgment mandates that any person arrested by the armed forces must be handed over to the nearest police station with the least possible delay, and definitely within 24 hours, not 30 days.
Consider the following statements regarding Comparison of AFSPA with TADA and POTA provisions:
1. The 1958 AFSPA allows for the detention of suspects for up to 180 days without filing a charge sheet, aligning its procedural timeline with the maximum detention period permitted under the 2002 POTA.
2. The Supreme Court in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case upheld the constitutional validity of AFSPA while suggesting that the 2002 POTA definition of terrorism should replace the term 'disturbed area' in the Act.
3. Section 4 of the AFSPA grants powers similar to those found in the TADA of 1987, specifically regarding the admissibility of confessions made to police officers as evidence in a court of law.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because AFSPA does not specify a detention period of 180 days; instead, it mandates that any person arrested must be handed over to the nearest police station with the least possible delay. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court, in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case (1997), upheld AFSPA's constitutionality but did not recommend replacing the 'disturbed area' definition with POTA, which was enacted later in 2002. Statement 3 is incorrect because AFSPA does not contain provisions regarding the admissibility of confessions made to police officers, a feature that was unique to the now-repealed TADA and POTA acts.
Consider the following statements regarding Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance vs Act:
1. The 1942 Ordinance was modeled after the Rowlatt Act of 1919 and remained in force until the enactment of the Preventive Detention Act in 1950.
2. Under the 1958 Act, the power to initiate legal proceedings against personnel is subject to the prior sanction of the Union Home Secretary, a provision introduced via the 1972 amendment.
3. The 1958 Act replaced the Assam Disturbed Areas Act of 1955 and extended its jurisdiction to the entire North Eastern Council region upon its formation in 1971.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1942 Ordinance was promulgated by the British to suppress the Quit India Movement, not the Rowlatt Act, and it expired in 1946. Statement 2 is incorrect because the prior sanction for legal proceedings is granted by the Central Government, not specifically the Home Secretary, and this immunity clause has been part of the original 1958 Act rather than a 1972 amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1958 Act was enacted specifically for the disturbed areas of Assam and Manipur, and it does not automatically extend to the entire North Eastern Council region; its application remains restricted to notified 'disturbed areas' by the state or central government.
Consider the following statements regarding Protection of persons acting in good faith under Section 6:
1. The 1958 Act draws its legislative inspiration from the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, which was enacted by the British colonial administration to suppress the Quit India Movement in the North-East frontier regions.
2. Under Section 6, the protection afforded to personnel is limited to actions taken in good faith while performing duties in areas declared as disturbed under Section 3 of the Act.
3. Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act mirrors the immunity provisions found in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which applies to public servants serving in the Indian Administrative Service.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as Section 6 of AFSPA provides legal immunity for actions taken in good faith in areas declared 'disturbed' under Section 3, requiring prior central government sanction for prosecution. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1942 Ordinance was promulgated to suppress the Quit India Movement across British India, not specifically the North-East frontier regions. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 6 of AFSPA provides a much broader 'blanket' immunity that effectively bars legal proceedings without prior government sanction, whereas Section 197 of the CrPC is a procedural safeguard for public servants that does not grant absolute immunity from judicial scrutiny.
Consider the following statements regarding Conflict between civil administration and military authority:
1. Under the Army Act, 1950, a court-martial has jurisdiction to try a person subject to the Act for an offence committed against a civilian, provided the offence occurred while the person was on active service.
2. The Supreme Court of India in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) case held that the declaration of an area as disturbed is subject to judicial review.
3. Article 34 of the Constitution of India allows Parliament to indemnify any person in the service of the Union for acts done in connection with the maintenance of order, and this indemnity covers all judicial proceedings initiated by state governments.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 70 of the Army Act, 1950, grants courts-martial jurisdiction over civil offences committed by military personnel against civilians if the act occurs while on active service. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in the Naga People's Movement case (1998) affirmed that while the declaration of a 'disturbed area' is a policy decision, it remains subject to judicial review to ensure it is not arbitrary. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 34 allows Parliament to indemnify acts done for the maintenance of order, but this indemnity power is limited to the Union or State government's service personnel and does not grant blanket immunity from all judicial proceedings initiated by state governments, nor does it override the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of the declaration of Disturbed Areas:
1. The 1997 Supreme Court verdict clarified that the power to declare an area as disturbed is not a subjective satisfaction beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny.
2. Under the 1958 Act, the opinion of the Governor or the Administrator regarding the necessity of the declaration is considered a prerequisite for the exercise of powers under Section 3.
3. The Supreme Court observed in the 1997 judgment that the declaration of a disturbed area should be for a limited duration and subject to periodic review by the competent authority.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
In the landmark 1997 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court held that the declaration of a 'disturbed area' under Section 3 of the AFSPA is not beyond judicial review, as it must be based on objective facts rather than mere subjective satisfaction. The Court affirmed that the opinion of the Governor or Administrator is a statutory prerequisite for the declaration, while simultaneously mandating that such a declaration cannot be permanent and must be subject to periodic review to ensure it remains necessary for maintaining public order.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of AFSPA in the North-Eastern states vs Jammu and Kashmir:
1. As of 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs has reduced the number of districts under the AFSPA in Nagaland, Assam, and Manipur following improved security assessments.
2. In Jammu and Kashmir, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act was enacted in 1990, distinct from the central 1958 legislation applicable to the North-Eastern states.
3. The B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee, appointed in 2004, recommended the repeal of the AFSPA and suggested incorporating appropriate provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the MHA has progressively reduced AFSPA-notified areas in Nagaland, Assam, and Manipur since 2022 due to improved security conditions. Statement 2 is correct because the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, is a separate piece of legislation enacted specifically for J&K, distinct from the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, which governs the North-Eastern states. Statement 3 is correct as the 2004 B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repealing AFSPA and integrating its essential provisions into the UAPA to address human rights concerns while maintaining security.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of the declaration of Disturbed Areas:
1. The 1958 Act encompasses the original administrative framework established by the 1942 Armed Forces Special Powers Ordinance, which was subsequently ratified by the Parliament of India in its first session of 1950.
2. In the 1997 Naga People's Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court held that the declaration of a disturbed area is subject to judicial review.
3. Section 3 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, provides the legal basis for the central government or the state government to issue a notification declaring an area as disturbed.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1958 Act was not a ratification of a 1950 ordinance; it was enacted in 1958 to replace various ordinances promulgated in 1947-48 to deal with the partition aftermath. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in the 1997 Naga People's Movement case ruled that while the declaration of a 'disturbed area' is subject to judicial review, it must be based on objective criteria rather than mere executive discretion. Statement 3 is correct because Section 3 of the AFSPA, 1958, empowers the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory, or the Central Government, to declare the whole or part of an area as a 'disturbed area' if it is in a dangerous or disturbed condition.
Consider the following statements regarding Santosh Hegde Commission recommendations on AFSPA:
1. The Commission recommended that the protection granted to armed forces personnel under Section 6 of AFSPA should be reviewed periodically by the central government.
2. The Supreme Court of India appointed the Santosh Hegde Commission in 2013 to investigate cases of extrajudicial killings in Manipur.
3. The Santosh Hegde Commission report observed that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, should not be used as a tool for permanent deployment in civilian areas.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
The Supreme Court appointed the Santosh Hegde Commission in 2013 to probe six specific cases of alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur, confirming the commission's mandate and origin. The report highlighted that AFSPA should not be a permanent fixture, emphasizing that the military should be deployed only for short durations and that Section 6, which grants immunity, requires periodic review to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of power. All three statements are factually accurate reflections of the commission's findings and the context of its appointment.
Consider the following statements regarding AFSPA 1958 legislative history and constitutional validity:
1. Section 4(a) of the AFSPA grants commissioned officers the authority to use lethal force against individuals violating prohibitory orders, a provision that was introduced through the 1972 amendment to the Act.
2. In the 1997 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act while emphasizing the need for periodic review of the disturbed area status.
3. The Supreme Court in the 2016 Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association case directed the formation of a special investigation team to probe cases in Manipur, citing the 1954 Naga Hills District Regulations.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 1997 Naga People's Movement case upheld AFSPA's constitutionality while mandating that the 'disturbed area' declaration must be reviewed periodically. Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 4(a) was part of the original 1958 Act, not introduced by a 1972 amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the 2016 judgment addressed extrajudicial killings in Manipur, it relied on the constitutional interpretation of AFSPA and the CrPC, not the 1954 Naga Hills District Regulations.
Consider the following statements regarding Disturbed Area declaration mechanism under Section 3:
1. The initial legislation, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, was enacted in the wake of the Naga insurgency and was originally applicable to the then-Assam and Manipur regions.
2. The Central Government retains the concurrent power under Section 3 to declare an area as disturbed if it considers the use of armed forces in aid of civil power necessary for the maintenance of public order.
3. Section 3 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, empowers the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory to declare the whole or any part of such State or Union Territory as a disturbed area.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the AFSPA was enacted in 1958 to address the Naga insurgency, initially covering the then-Assam and Manipur. Statement 2 is correct because Section 3 grants concurrent powers to the Central Government to declare an area disturbed if the use of armed forces is deemed necessary for public order. Statement 3 is correct as the Act explicitly empowers the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory to notify the whole or any part of their jurisdiction as a disturbed area.
Consider the following statements regarding Disturbed Area declaration mechanism under Section 3:
1. The 1958 Act includes provisions for the periodic review of a disturbed area declaration by a parliamentary committee, which is tasked with submitting a report to the President every six months.
2. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 allows for the declaration of a disturbed area by the District Magistrate, provided the state cabinet approves the notification within forty-eight hours.
3. The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act of 1976 provides for the establishment of special courts to try offences in disturbed areas, and these courts operate under the administrative supervision of the Ministry of Defence.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, does not mandate periodic review by a parliamentary committee, and the power to declare an area 'disturbed' lies with the Governor or the Central Government, not the District Magistrate. Furthermore, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act does not contain provisions for declaring disturbed areas, and Special Courts established under the 1976 Act function under the judiciary's supervision, not the Ministry of Defence.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'Public Order' and 'Internal Security:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1998 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India case held that the deployment of armed forces in aid of civil power is a temporary measure.
2. Internal Security falls under the residuary legislative powers of the Union, often managed through the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Seventh Schedule's Union List entries.
3. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 was initially enacted to address the insurgency in the Naga Hills district of the then-Assam state.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in the 1998 Naga People's Movement case ruled that the deployment of armed forces is an extraordinary, temporary measure meant to assist civil administration. Statement 2 is correct because, while 'Public Order' and 'Police' are State List subjects (Entry 1 and 2), matters of 'Internal Security' and the deployment of armed forces fall under the Union List (Entry 1 and 2A) to ensure national integrity. Statement 3 is correct as AFSPA was originally promulgated via an ordinance in 1958 specifically to combat the Naga insurgency in the Assam and Manipur regions.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of search and seizure without warrant:
1. The 1972 amendment to the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act extended the power of search and seizure to include the search of vehicles and vessels, following the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations.
2. The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, provides the legal framework for the establishment of special courts to try offences committed in areas where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is in operation.
3. The 2005 Jeevan Reddy Committee report recommended the repeal of the 1958 Act and suggested that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, be amended to include provisions for search and seizure in disturbed areas.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, was enacted to provide for the speedy trial of certain offences in disturbed areas. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1972 amendment to AFSPA was not based on the Sarkaria Commission, which was constituted only in 1983. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repealing AFSPA, it suggested incorporating its essential provisions into the UAPA rather than merely amending search and seizure powers.
Consider the following statements regarding Legal immunity and the doctrine of sovereign immunity:
1. The National Human Rights Commission was empowered by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006, to conduct independent inquiries into allegations of human rights violations by armed forces personnel without seeking prior clearance from the Ministry of Defence.
2. The concept of sovereign immunity in the Indian legal system is derived from the British Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, which remains the primary reference point for determining the liability of the state in tortious acts committed by military personnel.
3. Section 4 of the AFSPA grants the armed forces the power to destroy any structure suspected of being used as a hideout, and this provision includes a mandatory requirement for the payment of compensation to the property owners as determined by the local District Magistrate.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, mandates that the NHRC must seek a report from the Central Government before inquiring into allegations against armed forces. Statement 2 is incorrect as India follows the doctrine of sovereign immunity based on common law precedents (e.g., Kasturilal v. State of U.P.), not the British Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, which actually abolished such immunity in the UK. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Section 4 of the AFSPA empowers the destruction of structures, it contains no provision mandating compensation for such actions.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Union Government in invoking AFSPA in states:
1. The notification of a disturbed area under Section 3 remains valid for a period of six months, after which the state government submits a report to the Union Cabinet for an automatic extension of the status.
2. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee report of 2005 recommended the repeal of AFSPA and suggested incorporating its essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which the Parliament adopted in 2008.
3. In the case of Manipur, the state government holds the concurrent power to declare the entire territory as disturbed, a provision utilized in 2004 to withdraw the act from the Imphal Municipal Council area.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because there is no provision for 'automatic extension'; the declaration must be reviewed and renewed by the central or state government every six months. Statement 2 is incorrect because, although the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repealing AFSPA and integrating its provisions into the UAPA, the Parliament never adopted these recommendations. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Section 3 of the AFSPA, the power to declare an area 'disturbed' rests with the Governor of the State or the Administrator of the Union Territory or the Central Government, and the withdrawal in Imphal (2004) was a result of state-level pressure leading to a notification, not a concurrent power to unilaterally declare the entire territory.
Consider the following statements regarding Human rights violations and the role of the NHRC:
1. The NHRC was established on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Ordinance, and its chairperson is appointed by the President based on the recommendation of a committee chaired by the Chief Justice of India.
2. The 1997 Supreme Court guidelines regarding the implementation of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act include the creation of a grievance cell within the Ministry of Home Affairs to process civilian complaints against military personnel.
3. In the Santosh De v. Archana Guha (1994) judgment, the judiciary emphasized that the NHRC serves as a specialized body to address grievances that may arise during the enforcement of special security legislations.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the NHRC chairperson is appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee chaired by the Prime Minister, not the Chief Justice of India. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court's 1997 guidelines (Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India) mandated the creation of a grievance cell within the armed forces themselves, not the Ministry of Home Affairs. Statement 3 is correct as the judiciary has consistently affirmed the NHRC's role as a specialized statutory body empowered to investigate human rights violations, including those potentially arising from the enforcement of special security legislations.
Consider the following statements regarding Comparison of AFSPA with TADA and POTA provisions:
1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, allows commissioned officers to use force against individuals contravening laws prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons in areas declared as disturbed under Section 3 of the Act.
2. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1985 introduced the concept of disturbed areas, which was later incorporated into the 1958 AFSPA framework to synchronize counter-insurgency operations.
3. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, the burden of proof shifts to the accused if recovery of arms is made from their possession, a provision that was originally drafted for the AFSPA in 1958.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 4(a) of AFSPA empowers any commissioned officer, warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer to use force, including lethal force, against persons acting in contravention of prohibitory orders in a 'disturbed area'. Statement 2 is incorrect because the concept of 'disturbed areas' originated in the 1958 AFSPA itself, whereas TADA (1985) was a distinct anti-terror legislation that did not inform the creation of AFSPA. Statement 3 is incorrect because while POTA (2002) did include a reverse burden of proof clause regarding the possession of arms, this specific legal principle was never part of the original 1958 AFSPA framework.
Consider the following statements regarding Supreme Court guidelines in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case:
1. The guidelines specify that the armed forces personnel are subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts for any offences committed during the operation of the Act.
2. The 1998 judgment established that the central government has the authority to declare an area as disturbed, but it should consult with the state government before such a proclamation is issued.
3. The Court held that the armed forces are expected to act in aid of civil power and should hand over arrested persons to the nearest police station with the least possible delay.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
In the 1998 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA, ruling that armed forces personnel are subject to ordinary criminal law for offences committed, ensuring accountability. The Court mandated that while the Central Government can declare an area 'disturbed,' it must consult the State Government to maintain federal balance, and emphasized that the military acts in aid of civil power, requiring the immediate handover of arrested individuals to local police to uphold due process.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of the declaration of Disturbed Areas:
1. The 1958 Act includes provisions for the establishment of a state-level monitoring committee, which was later amended by the 1972 Act to include representatives from the National Human Rights Commission.
2. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, empowers the Governor of a state or the Administrator of a Union Territory to declare the whole or part of an area as a disturbed area.
3. The 1997 Naga People's Movement for Human Rights judgment refers to the 1972 amendment of the Armed Forces Act, which introduced the requirement for a mandatory legislative assembly vote before any extension of the disturbed area status.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because under Section 3 of the AFSPA, 1958, the Governor of a state or the Administrator of a UT is empowered to declare an area as 'disturbed' if they are of the opinion that it is in such a dangerous condition that the use of armed forces is necessary. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1958 Act contains no provision for a state-level monitoring committee or NHRC representation, and the 1972 amendment primarily expanded the power to declare disturbed areas to the Central Government. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights (1997) case upheld the constitutionality of the Act and did not mandate a legislative assembly vote for the extension of disturbed area status.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction of military courts vs civil courts in AFSPA areas:
1. Under the Army Act, 1950, courts-martial have jurisdiction to try personnel for offences committed against civilians, provided the offence was committed while the accused was on active service or at any place beyond the frontiers of India.
2. Article 34 of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to indemnify any person in the service of the Union or of a State for any act done in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area where martial law was in force.
3. The 1997 judgment in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India clarified that the declaration of an area as a 'disturbed area' under Section 3 of the AFSPA is a prerequisite for the exercise of special powers by the armed forces.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 70 of the Army Act, 1950, mandates that military courts have jurisdiction over civil offences committed by personnel while on active service or abroad. Statement 2 is correct because Article 34 explicitly empowers Parliament to provide indemnity for acts done during the maintenance of order in areas under martial law, distinguishing it from the fundamental rights restrictions in Article 33. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in the 1997 Naga People's Movement case upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA, ruling that a formal declaration of a 'disturbed area' under Section 3 is a mandatory legal precondition for the deployment of special powers.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'Public Order' and 'Internal Security:
1. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was originally drafted as a constitutional amendment to define the scope of internal security, replacing the existing state-level public order legislation.
2. The 1952 Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act provides the legal framework for the Union government to assume direct control over state police departments during periods of prolonged internal security threats.
3. The 1986 Commission on Centre-State Relations, chaired by Justice R.S. Sarkaria, recommended that the Union government deploy paramilitary forces in state-level public order disturbances without prior consultation with the Governor.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the UAPA, 1967 was enacted as an ordinary legislation to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities, not as a constitutional amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 restricts the fundamental rights of police personnel regarding associations and political activities, rather than granting the Union control over state police. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Sarkaria Commission explicitly emphasized that the Union should consult the State government before deploying armed forces, noting that unilateral deployment should be a measure of last resort.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'Public Order' and 'Internal Security:
1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 transferred Public Order from the State List to the Concurrent List to ensure uniform application of internal security protocols across all states.
2. Entry 1 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution identifies Public Order as a primary responsibility of the State Government, distinct from the Union's role in defense.
3. Under the provisions of the 1950 Constitution, the President exercises the power to declare a state of internal emergency in specific districts under Article 356 upon the recommendation of the Chief of Army Staff.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Entry 1 of the State List (List II) explicitly places 'Public Order' under the jurisdiction of State Governments. Statement 1 is incorrect because 'Public Order' remains in the State List and was never transferred to the Concurrent List by the 42nd Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 356 pertains to the failure of constitutional machinery in a state, not internal security, and it is invoked by the President based on a report from the Governor, not the Chief of Army Staff.
Consider the following statements regarding International humanitarian law and the enforcement of AFSPA:
1. The Jeevan Reddy Committee report of 2005 recommended the repeal of AFSPA and suggested incorporating its essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
2. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention IV provides protection to civilians in armed conflicts, a principle often invoked by the Supreme Court of India when reviewing the application of AFSPA.
3. The Santosh Hegde Commission was established in 2013 to investigate extrajudicial killings in Manipur, and its final report recommended the immediate application of the International Criminal Court statutes to AFSPA operations.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) indeed recommended repealing AFSPA and integrating its provisions into the UAPA, while Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is a foundational principle of international humanitarian law often cited in judicial discourse regarding civilian protections. Statement 3 is incorrect because, although the Santosh Hegde Commission (2013) investigated extrajudicial killings in Manipur, it recommended amending AFSPA to ensure accountability and judicial oversight rather than proposing the application of International Criminal Court statutes, which India has not ratified.
Consider the following statements regarding AFSPA 1958 legislative history and constitutional validity:
1. The 1958 Act originated from the 1942 Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance, which was promulgated by the Viceroy to address civil unrest during the Quit India Movement.
2. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was enacted by the Parliament in 1958, initially replacing the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance promulgated in May 1958.
3. Under Section 3 of the AFSPA, the power to declare an area as a disturbed area is vested in the Governor of the State or the Administrator of the Union Territory, in addition to the Central Government.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because AFSPA 1958 originated from the 1942 Ordinance promulgated by the British to suppress the Quit India Movement, but it was not a direct legislative predecessor in terms of legal continuity. Statement 2 is correct as the 1958 Act replaced the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance promulgated by the President in May 1958. Statement 3 is correct because Section 3 of the Act empowers both the Central Government and the Governor of the State or Administrator of a Union Territory to declare the whole or any part of such State or Union Territory as a 'disturbed area'.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of AFSPA in the North-Eastern states vs Jammu and Kashmir:
1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was originally promulgated through an ordinance in May 1958 to address the insurgency in the Naga Hills district of Assam.
2. Section 3 of the AFSPA empowers the Governor of a state or the Administrator of a Union Territory to declare the whole or any part of the territory as a disturbed area.
3. The Supreme Court of India in the 1998 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case upheld the constitutional validity of the AFSPA while emphasizing the need for periodic review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the AFSPA was indeed promulgated via an ordinance in May 1958 to tackle the Naga insurgency. Statement 2 is correct because Section 3 grants the power to declare an area 'disturbed' to the Governor of a state or the Administrator of a UT, as well as the Central Government. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 1998 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case upheld the Act's validity while mandating that the 'disturbed area' status must be reviewed periodically rather than remaining in force indefinitely.
Consider the following statements regarding Conflict between civil administration and military authority:
1. The Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955, remains the primary legislation governing the deployment of paramilitary forces in the Northeast, and it grants the state police the power to oversee military tactical decisions.
2. Section 4 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, grants commissioned officers the authority to fire upon or use force against any person acting in contravention of law in disturbed areas.
3. The 2005 Jeevan Reddy Committee report recommended the repeal of AFSPA and suggested the incorporation of its provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to streamline the administrative oversight of military operations.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Section 4 of AFSPA empowers commissioned officers to use force, including lethal force, against individuals violating prohibitory orders in declared disturbed areas. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Assam Disturbed Areas Act does not grant state police authority over military tactical decisions, which remain under the command of the armed forces. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) did recommend repealing AFSPA, it specifically advised against incorporating its provisions into the UAPA, arguing that such a move would be inappropriate and counterproductive.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between AFSPA and Article 21 of the Constitution:
1. The 1958 Act was introduced as a temporary measure to address the Naga insurgency, and the Supreme Court in the 1982 Inderjeet Singh case ruled that Article 21 protections remain suspended in areas declared as disturbed.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1997 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India case held that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act does not violate the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
3. The 2005 report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission suggested that the AFSPA be replaced by a National Security Act amendment, which would grant the judiciary the power to review the declaration of a disturbed area.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 1997 Naga People's Movement case upheld the constitutional validity of AFSPA, ruling that it does not violate Article 21 as the powers granted are subject to procedural safeguards. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court has never ruled that Article 21 is suspended in disturbed areas; in fact, it has consistently maintained that the right to life cannot be suspended even under AFSPA. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (5th Report) recommended repealing AFSPA and incorporating its provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, rather than amending the National Security Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between AFSPA and Article 21 of the Constitution:
1. The Supreme Court in the 2012 Santosh Kumar v. Union of India judgment observed that the use of force under Section 4 of the AFSPA is subject to the prior approval of the local District Magistrate to satisfy the procedural requirements of Article 21.
2. The 1997 judgment by the Constitution Bench clarified that the AFSPA is a state-specific law, and the provisions regarding the use of force are derived from the 1962 Defence of India Rules to maintain consistency with the right to life.
3. Under the 1958 legislation, the power to declare an area as disturbed rests with the Governor of the state, and the 1972 amendment shifted this authority to the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure compliance with Article 21.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because they misrepresent legal precedents and legislative history. Statement 1 is false as the landmark Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) judgment clarified that AFSPA powers are not subject to prior magisterial approval; Statement 2 is false because the 1997 Constitution Bench did not link AFSPA to the 1962 Defence of India Rules, nor is AFSPA a state-specific law; Statement 3 is false because the power to declare an area 'disturbed' under Section 3 of the 1958 Act rests with both the Central Government and the Governor/Administrator, and the 1972 amendment did not shift this authority solely to the MHA to satisfy Article 21.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural requirements for prosecution sanction under AFSPA:
1. Under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the power to grant sanction for prosecution against public servants is generally vested in the authority competent to remove such persons from their office.
2. The 1997 Supreme Court judgment in Naga People's Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India clarified that the Central Government's decision to grant or refuse sanction under Section 6 of AFSPA is subject to judicial review.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act of 2005 introduced a specific 90-day time limit for the Central Government to process prosecution sanction requests, and this timeline applies to all cases involving personnel deployed under AFSPA.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 197 of the CrPC mandates that sanction for prosecution of public servants must be granted by the authority competent to remove them from office. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 1997 Naga People's Movement case affirmed that the power to grant sanction under Section 6 of AFSPA is not absolute and remains subject to judicial review to prevent arbitrary exercise of power. Statement 3 is incorrect because neither the CrPC Amendment Act of 2005 nor the AFSPA itself prescribes a mandatory 90-day time limit for the Central Government to process prosecution sanctions, making the claim legally baseless.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural requirements for prosecution sanction under AFSPA:
1. Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act provides for the immediate suspension of any officer facing a criminal complaint, and this provision was invoked during the 1991 operations in Assam to facilitate independent investigations.
2. In the 2012 judgment regarding the Pathribal encounter case, the Supreme Court held that the Army has the option to choose between a court-martial or a criminal court for the trial of personnel accused of offences under the AFSPA framework.
3. The Ministry of Home Affairs maintains a record of requests for prosecution sanction received from state governments concerning incidents reported in areas declared as disturbed under the 1958 Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 7 of AFSPA mandates prior sanction from the Central Government for prosecution, not the immediate suspension of officers. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in the 2012 Pathribal case ruled that under Section 7, the competent military authority has the discretion to decide whether an accused personnel should be tried by a court-martial or a criminal court. Statement 3 is correct because the Ministry of Home Affairs acts as the nodal authority for processing and maintaining records of prosecution sanction requests submitted by state governments for incidents occurring in areas notified as 'disturbed' under the 1958 Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance vs Act:
1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor-General on August 15, 1942, to address the civil unrest associated with the Quit India Movement.
2. The Supreme Court in the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India case held that the 1958 Act is a temporary measure that lapses automatically after every six-month review period.
3. The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act of 1976 was enacted to supplement the 1958 Act, providing for the establishment of special courts in areas notified under the 1958 legislation.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the AFSPA ordinance was indeed promulgated by the Governor-General in 1942 to suppress the Quit India Movement. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1958 Act in the Naga People's Movement case, it ruled that the Act does not lapse automatically and requires a formal declaration by the government to remain in force. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, was enacted to provide for the speedy trial of offences in disturbed areas, but it is a separate piece of legislation that does not function as a mandatory supplement to the 1958 AFSPA.
Consider the following statements regarding Jurisdiction of military courts vs civil courts in AFSPA areas:
1. Section 4(a) of the AFSPA allows a commissioned officer to use force against persons acting in contravention of law, and the 1972 amendment to this section introduced the requirement of a mandatory magisterial inquiry for every instance of firing.
2. The Supreme Court's 1997 ruling held that the Union Government maintains the authority to declare an area as disturbed under Section 3, but the 1986 amendment to the Act provides for the concurrent jurisdiction of State High Courts in reviewing these declarations.
3. The 2005 Jeevan Reddy Committee report recommended the repeal of AFSPA and suggested that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, serves as a sufficient legislative framework for handling internal security operations in all disturbed regions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1972 amendment did not mandate a magisterial inquiry; rather, the Act provides legal immunity for actions taken in good faith, and judicial scrutiny remains limited. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997) case upheld the constitutionality of the Act and did not establish concurrent jurisdiction for High Courts to review the 'disturbed area' declaration, which is a political executive decision. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repealing AFSPA, it proposed incorporating appropriate provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) rather than suggesting that the existing UAPA framework was already sufficient as-is.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Union Government in invoking AFSPA in states:
1. The Supreme Court of India in the 2016 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association case observed that the deployment of armed forces under AFSPA is meant to be temporary and subject to periodic review.
2. Section 3 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, empowers the Governor of a state or the Administrator of a Union Territory to declare an area as disturbed.
3. The Naga Hills district was declared a disturbed area under the Assam Disturbed Areas Act of 1955, which served as a legislative precursor to the national AFSPA enactment in 1958.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in the 2016 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association case emphasized that AFSPA cannot be a permanent feature and requires periodic review to ensure it does not violate constitutional rights. Statement 2 is correct because Section 3 of the AFSPA, 1958, grants the power to declare an area 'disturbed' to the Governor of a state, the Administrator of a UT, or the Central Government. Statement 3 is correct as the 1955 Assam Disturbed Areas Act was indeed the legislative precursor used to manage the Naga Hills insurgency before the national AFSPA was enacted in 1958.
Consider the following statements regarding Protection of persons acting in good faith under Section 6:
1. The Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification in 2005 under Section 6, which empowers state-level governors to grant sanction for prosecution of military personnel deployed in areas designated as disturbed.
2. The 1997 judgment in Naga People's Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India affirmed that the existence of a declaration of a disturbed area is a prerequisite for the invocation of powers under Section 6.
3. The Jeevan Reddy Committee report of 2005 recommended the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and suggested that the immunity provisions of Section 6 be incorporated into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in the 1997 Naga People's Movement for Human Rights case upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA, ruling that a 'disturbed area' declaration under Section 3 is a mandatory prerequisite for invoking Section 6. Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 6 of AFSPA requires prior sanction from the Central Government, not state-level governors, for the prosecution of armed forces personnel. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the 2005 Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee did recommend repealing AFSPA, it proposed incorporating its essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act rather than merely the immunity clauses, and it specifically argued that the immunity under Section 6 should be removed to ensure accountability.
Consider the following statements regarding Disturbed Area declaration mechanism under Section 3:
1. The notification of a disturbed area under Section 3 remains valid for a period of one year from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, after which the state legislature conducts a mandatory floor test for renewal.
2. Under the 1972 amendment to the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the power to declare an area as disturbed was extended to include the Governors of the newly formed states in the North-Eastern region.
3. The 1958 legislation was modeled after the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, which was originally promulgated by the Viceroy to address the civil unrest during the Quit India Movement.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the 1972 amendment empowered both the Central government and the Governors of the states in the North-Eastern region to declare an area 'disturbed'. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Act does not specify a fixed one-year expiry, nor does it mandate a state legislative floor test for renewal. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1958 Act was modeled after the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1947, which was promulgated by the British to deal with the partition-related unrest, rather than the 1942 Ordinance.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship between AFSPA and Article 21 of the Constitution:
1. The Jeevan Reddy Committee, established in 2004, recommended the repeal of the AFSPA and the incorporation of its essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to better address human rights concerns.
2. Section 4(a) of the AFSPA, 1958, provides the power to fire upon or use force against any person acting in contravention of law, provided a warning is given to such person.
3. In the 2016 Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court ruled that the immunity granted under Section 6 of the AFSPA does not prevent the registration of an FIR for an alleged encounter death.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the 2004 Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repealing AFSPA to humanize the law, suggesting its provisions be integrated into the UAPA. Statement 2 is correct because Section 4(a) explicitly empowers authorized personnel to use lethal force against individuals violating prohibitory orders, provided due warning is issued. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 2016 Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association case clarified that AFSPA does not provide absolute immunity, and any allegation of an extrajudicial killing must be investigated through an FIR, regardless of the Act's protective provisions.
Consider the following statements regarding Protection of persons acting in good faith under Section 6:
1. Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, provides that no prosecution or legal proceeding can be instituted against any person in respect of anything done in exercise of powers conferred by the Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
2. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was initially promulgated as an ordinance in May 1958 to address the insurgency in the Naga Hills and the Tamenglong subdivision of Manipur.
3. The Supreme Court of India, in the 2016 Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association case, observed that the protection under Section 6 does not grant immunity to armed forces personnel from investigation into allegations of excessive use of force.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 6 of AFSPA mandates prior Central Government sanction for legal proceedings against personnel acting under the Act. Statement 2 is correct because the AFSPA was indeed promulgated as an ordinance in May 1958 to tackle the Naga insurgency, later becoming an Act in September 1958. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 2016 Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association case clarified that Section 6 does not provide absolute immunity, and the armed forces are not exempt from investigations into allegations of extrajudicial killings or excessive force.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Union Government in invoking AFSPA in states:
1. The 1972 amendment to the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act transferred the power to declare an area as disturbed from the State Governor to the President of India, following the reorganization of North-Eastern states.
2. Under the provisions of the 1958 Act, the armed forces personnel operating in a disturbed area are granted immunity from prosecution, provided the incident occurs during a search operation authorized by the local District Magistrate.
3. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs holds the authority to unilaterally revoke a disturbed area notification under Section 3, a power exercised during the 1997 ceasefire agreement with the NSCN-IM.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1972 amendment empowered both the Central Government and the State Governor to declare an area 'disturbed,' not just the President. Statement 2 is incorrect as Section 6 of the Act provides immunity from prosecution for actions taken in good faith, and it does not require prior authorization from a District Magistrate for such protection. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Centre can issue notifications, the power to revoke is not a unilateral executive discretion exercised in the manner described, and the MHA does not have a specific 'unilateral revocation' clause under Section 3 that bypasses the statutory notification process.
Consider the following statements regarding Supreme Court guidelines in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case:
1. The Naga People's Movement case verdict upheld the 1958 legislation's provision that allows the armed forces to conduct search operations without any requirement to maintain a record of the seized items.
2. The 1958 Act allows the Governor of a state to declare an area disturbed, and the 1998 Supreme Court ruling confirmed this power is independent of any central government oversight.
3. The Supreme Court in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India case ruled that the declaration of an area as disturbed under the AFSPA should be for a limited duration and subject to periodic review.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 1997 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case held that a declaration under Section 3 of AFSPA cannot be permanent and must be subject to periodic review by the central or state government. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Court explicitly mandated that the armed forces must maintain a record of any items seized during search operations to ensure accountability. Statement 2 is incorrect because the ruling clarified that while both the Central and State governments have the power to declare an area disturbed, the opinion of the State government is not binding on the Centre, and the Centre can declare an area disturbed even if the State government opposes it.
Consider the following statements regarding Power of search and seizure without warrant:
1. Section 4(a) of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, allows for the firing upon or using force against any person acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1998 Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India case held that the powers under Section 4 of the Act are not arbitrary and are subject to the principles of proportionality.
3. Section 5 of the 1958 Act provides that any person arrested and taken into custody under the power of search and seizure is to be made over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station within 48 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 4(a) of the AFSPA grants armed forces the power to use lethal force against individuals violating prohibitory orders in disturbed areas. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in the 1998 Naga People's Movement case upheld the Act's constitutionality while mandating that these powers must be exercised with proportionality and caution. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 5 of the Act requires the arrested person to be handed over to the nearest police station with the least possible delay, not within a fixed 48-hour window.