Free Speech Restrictions MCQs

Consider the following statements regarding Decency and morality standards: 1. The Obscene Publications Act of 1925, enacted during the colonial period, remains the primary legislative framework for defining moral standards in digital media broadcasts across India. 2. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of decency or morality. 3. The Cinematograph Act of 1952 establishes the Central Board of Film Certification, which evaluates content based on standards of public decency and morality. 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 2 is correct as Article 19(2) explicitly lists 'decency or morality' as valid grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions on free speech. Statement 3 is correct because the Cinematograph Act, 1952, mandates the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to ensure film content adheres to public order, decency, and morality. Statement 1 is incorrect because there is no 'Obscene Publications Act of 1925'; instead, obscenity in digital and physical media is primarily governed by the Indian Penal Code (Sections 292-294) and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Consider the following statements regarding Test of proximate nexus: 1. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution was amended by the First Amendment Act of 1951 to include the term 'public order' as a ground for restricting freedom of speech. 2. The Supreme Court in the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar judgment emphasized that the restriction on free speech must have a proximate nexus to the incitement of violence. 3. The 1962 Kedar Nath Singh verdict draws upon the 1950 Brij Bhushan case to establish that sedition is a cognizable offense under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. 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 First Amendment Act, 1951, introduced 'public order' as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) to overcome judicial rulings that had limited the state's power to curb speech. Statement 2 is correct because the Kedar Nath Singh (1962) judgment established the 'proximate nexus' test, ruling that speech can only be restricted as sedition if it has a direct, causal link to incitement of violence or public disorder. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1950 Brij Bhushan case actually struck down pre-censorship on the ground of public safety, and the Kedar Nath Singh verdict upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A by narrowing its scope, rather than drawing upon Brij Bhushan to define it as a cognizable offense.

Consider the following statements regarding Security of the State threshold: 1. The Supreme Court in the 2015 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, citing its potential to criminalize speech that did not pose a clear threat to state security. 2. The 1950 Constitution of India originally included 'incitement to an offense' as a ground for restriction, which was later removed by the 16th Amendment in 1963 to align with international human rights standards. 3. Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the government designates organizations as terrorist entities, and this classification provides the legal basis for the automatic suspension of fundamental rights for members of those groups. 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 because the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A for being vague and overbroad, failing to distinguish between mere discussion and incitement to public disorder. Statement 2 is incorrect because 'incitement to an offense' was actually added, not removed, by the First Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951, while the 16th Amendment (1963) introduced 'sovereignty and integrity of India' as a ground for restriction. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the UAPA allows for the designation of terrorist organizations, it does not provide for the automatic suspension of fundamental rights for members; any deprivation of rights must still adhere to due process and constitutional safeguards.

Consider the following statements regarding Prior restraint and censorship: 1. Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows a District Magistrate to issue orders prohibiting the assembly of four or more persons to prevent obstruction or danger to human life. 2. The 1950 Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi judgment upheld the validity of pre-censorship on newspapers, and this precedent was later codified under the 1951 Press (Objectionable Matter) Act. 3. In the 1989 S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram judgment, the court held that the anticipated reaction of a hostile audience is not a valid ground for restricting the screening of a film. 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 Section 144 of the CrPC empowers executive magistrates to issue prohibitory orders to prevent public nuisance or danger. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in S. Rangarajan (1989) ruled that the state cannot shirk its responsibility to maintain law and order by suppressing free speech based on the 'heckler's veto' of a hostile audience. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the Brij Bhushan case (1950) dealt with pre-censorship, the court actually struck down the Chief Commissioner's order requiring pre-approval of news, emphasizing that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the press.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions: 1. The test of proportionality, as applied to Article 19(2) restrictions, was elaborated by the Supreme Court in the 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment regarding privacy and personal liberty. 2. The Supreme Court in the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar judgment held that the restriction of 'contempt of court' under Article 19(2) applies to both civil and criminal proceedings in lower tribunals. 3. The 1951 First Amendment Act incorporated 'incitement to an offence' as a ground for restriction, which was subsequently removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978. 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 K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment established the four-pronged proportionality test (legality, legitimate goal, suitability, and necessity) for evaluating restrictions on fundamental rights. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Kedar Nath Singh (1962) judgment dealt with the constitutionality of sedition (Section 124A IPC), not the scope of 'contempt of court' under Article 19(2). Statement 3 is incorrect because 'incitement to an offence' was added by the First Amendment Act (1951) and remains a valid ground for restriction under Article 19(2) to this day; it was never removed by the 44th Amendment.

Consider the following statements regarding Sovereignty and integrity of India clause: 1. The 1963 Amendment was passed by Parliament to address concerns regarding secessionist movements that gained prominence after the 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict. 2. The Committee on National Integration, chaired by Dr. Sampurnanand in 1961, recommended the inclusion of sovereignty and integrity as a specific ground for restricting speech. 3. Judicial interpretation in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) preceded the formal constitutional inclusion of sovereignty as a specific restriction clause. 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 16th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963, was enacted following the 1962 Sino-Indian War to curb secessionist rhetoric, implementing the recommendations of the 1961 National Integration Council (chaired by Sampurnanand) to protect India's territorial integrity. The Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) judgment focused on the constitutionality of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC, predating the formal inclusion of 'sovereignty and integrity' as a specific restriction under Article 19(2) by the 1963 Amendment. Since all three statements accurately reflect the historical and legal evolution of these constitutional restrictions, all are correct.

Consider the following statements regarding Decency and morality standards: 1. The Press Council of India, established under the 1978 Act, maintains the authority to revoke the license of any newspaper that publishes content deemed contrary to the cultural morality of the state. 2. The Supreme Court in the 1985 Aveek Sarkar case rejected the community standard test and replaced it with the Victorian-era definition of obscenity for all artistic works. 3. In the Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965) case, the Supreme Court adopted the Hicklin test to determine whether a publication is obscene under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 in Ranjit D. Udeshi (1965), the Supreme Court upheld Section 292 of the IPC by adopting the British Hicklin test, which judges obscenity based on the tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Press Council of India lacks the statutory power to revoke newspaper licenses, as it functions primarily as a quasi-judicial body for ethical self-regulation. Statement 2 is incorrect because, in the Aveek Sarkar case (2014), the Supreme Court explicitly moved away from the outdated Hicklin test, favoring the 'community standard test' to determine obscenity based on contemporary social mores rather than Victorian-era moralities.

Consider the following statements regarding Section 66A of IT Act and Shreya Singhal verdict: 1. The Shreya Singhal judgment relied upon the 1950 Romesh Thappar ruling to distinguish between 'public order' and 'security of the state', leading to the immediate repeal of Section 69A alongside Section 66A. 2. The Information Technology Act was enacted in 2000 to facilitate electronic commerce, and Section 66A was incorporated as part of the original legislative text to address cyber-stalking. 3. The Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act in the March 2015 judgment of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. 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 as the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in the 2015 Shreya Singhal case for being unconstitutionally vague. Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 69A, which deals with website blocking, was upheld by the court and not repealed alongside Section 66A. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 66A was not part of the original 2000 Act but was inserted via the 2008 Amendment Act to address 'offensive' electronic messages, not specifically cyber-stalking.

Consider the following statements regarding Defamation as a criminal offence: 1. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal defamation as the making or publishing of any imputation concerning any person with the intent to harm their reputation. 2. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of defamation. 3. The Supreme Court of India in the 2016 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India case upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 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. All three statements are correct: Section 499 of the IPC explicitly defines criminal defamation, while Article 19(2) of the Constitution specifically lists 'defamation' as a ground for imposing reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, in the landmark 2016 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500, ruling that the right to reputation is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 and must be balanced against the right to free speech.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of proportionality in speech: 1. The 1951 First Amendment to the Constitution introduced the term 'reasonable restrictions' to Article 19(2), which the judiciary later linked to the doctrine of proportionality in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case. 2. The Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) judgment clarified that the proportionality test is applicable to Article 14, while Article 19(2) is governed by the doctrine of pith and substance. 3. The 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment incorporated the proportionality principle into the review of reservation policies, serving as the primary legal precedent for speech-related restrictions in the 1990s. 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 'reasonable restrictions' clause was introduced by the First Amendment, but the proportionality doctrine was formally integrated into Indian constitutional law much later, notably in the Anuradha Bhasin (2020) and Modern Dental College (2016) cases, not Kesavananda Bharati. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Modern Dental College case explicitly established that the proportionality test is the standard for determining the validity of restrictions under Article 19(2), rejecting the 'pith and substance' doctrine for this purpose. Statement 3 is incorrect as the Indra Sawhney judgment dealt with reservation policies and the 'creamy layer' concept, and it is not the primary precedent for speech-related restrictions, which are governed by the specific tests laid out in cases like Shreya Singhal and Anuradha Bhasin.

Consider the following statements regarding Hate speech and legal definitions: 1. The Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for being constitutionally vague. 2. Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1927 following the Rangila Rasul case to protect religious sentiments, and it covers speech that insults the founders of any political party. 3. The Press Council of India Act of 1978 empowers the Council to issue guidelines on journalistic ethics, and its decisions regarding hate speech are binding on all digital news media platforms. 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 Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Section 295A was indeed enacted in 1927 following the Rangila Rasul controversy, it specifically protects religious sentiments and does not cover insults directed at political party founders. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Press Council of India's jurisdiction is limited to print media and its decisions are not legally binding on digital news media platforms.

Consider the following statements regarding Prior restraint and censorship: 1. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution was amended by the First Amendment Act of 1951 to include the specific ground of public order for restricting free speech. 2. The Cinematograph Act of 1952 established the Central Board of Film Certification as a statutory body to regulate the public exhibition of films through prior scrutiny. 3. The Supreme Court of India in the 1950 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras case struck down a government order that imposed pre-censorship on a weekly journal. 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 First Amendment Act, 1951, introduced 'public order' as a ground for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) following judicial rulings. Statement 2 is correct because the Cinematograph Act, 1952, empowers the CBFC to certify films, functioning as a system of prior restraint through mandatory scrutiny. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) invalidated the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which had imposed pre-censorship on the journal 'Crossroads' for lacking a constitutional basis for public order restrictions at that time.

Consider the following statements regarding Content-neutral vs content-based regulations: 1. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under Article 19, recognizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression while acknowledging potential limitations for public order. 2. In the 1973 Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court held that newsprint allocation policies based on circulation figures constitute content-neutral regulation of the press. 3. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the 2015 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case for being vague and overbroad. 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 Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees freedom of expression while Article 29 allows limitations for public order and general welfare. Statement 2 is correct because in Bennett Coleman (1973), the Supreme Court struck down newsprint quotas as a violation of Article 19(1)(a), establishing that even content-neutral regulations cannot indirectly suppress press freedom through restrictive allocation policies. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) struck down Section 66A for being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, failing the test of 'reasonable restriction' under Article 19(2). All statements are factually accurate.

Consider the following statements regarding Test of proximate nexus: 1. The test of proximate nexus is defined under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the government to forfeit publications inciting communal disharmony. 2. The test of proximate nexus requires that the relationship between the speech and the apprehended danger is not remote, far-fetched, or merely speculative in nature. 3. Article 19(2) underwent a significant revision in 1963 via the Sixteenth Amendment Act, which added 'sovereignty and integrity of India' as a valid ground for speech limitation. 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 'proximate nexus' test, established by the Supreme Court in cases like Kedar Nath Singh, mandates that speech can only be restricted if there is a direct, immediate link to public disorder rather than a remote or speculative one. Statement 1 is incorrect because the test is a judicial doctrine derived from constitutional interpretation, not a statutory definition under Section 95 of the CrPC. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 'sovereignty and integrity of India' ground was added to Article 19(2) by the Sixteenth Constitutional Amendment Act of 1963, but the amendment was enacted in 1963, not via a 'revision' of the article's text structure in the manner implied.

Consider the following statements regarding Blasphemy and religious sentiments: 1. The 1951 First Amendment to the Constitution introduced the test of 'clear and present danger' for restricting speech, which serves as the primary legal standard for evaluating blasphemy cases in India. 2. The Supreme Court in the Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957) judgment upheld the constitutional validity of Section 295A under the reasonable restrictions clause of Article 19(2). 3. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India was amended by the First Amendment Act of 1951 to include the term 'public order' as a ground for restricting freedom of speech. 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 'clear and present danger' test is a US constitutional doctrine; Indian courts utilize the 'reasonable restrictions' test under Article 19(2), which requires a proximate nexus between the speech and public disorder. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi (1957) held that Section 295A of the IPC is valid because it only punishes aggravated forms of insult to religion calculated to disrupt public order. Statement 3 is correct because the First Amendment Act of 1951 introduced 'public order' as a specific ground for limiting freedom of speech to overcome the judicial interpretation in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras.

Consider the following statements regarding Sedition law and Kedar Nath Singh precedent: 1. Section 124A was invoked against Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897, and the Kedar Nath Singh precedent affirmed that the law provides protection for speech that encourages peaceful protest against the Union Government. 2. The Kedar Nath Singh decision of 1962 interpreted the scope of Section 124A, and the court held that the law is applicable to any form of written communication that criticizes the sovereign integrity of the British Crown. 3. The Supreme Court in the Kedar Nath Singh case distinguished between 'disloyalty to government' and 'disloyalty to the state', and the court concluded that the latter is a punishable offense under the Indian Penal Code. 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 Section 124A was invoked against Tilak, the Kedar Nath Singh (1962) judgment clarified that the law applies only to speech inciting violence or public disorder, not mere peaceful protest. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court specifically restricted the scope of Section 124A to prevent its misuse, explicitly rejecting the colonial interpretation that any criticism of the government constitutes sedition. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Court distinguished between 'disloyalty to the government' (which is not sedition) and 'incitement to violence against the State' (which is sedition), clarifying that only the latter is punishable to ensure the law remains consistent with the fundamental right to free speech.

Consider the following statements regarding Public order vs Law and order distinction: 1. The 2005 Disaster Management Act includes provisions for regulating public gatherings during emergencies, and it operates under the constitutional authority granted by the Seventh Schedule's Union List regarding public order. 2. The 1990 TADA Act was enacted to handle extremist activities, and it incorporated the distinction between law and order and public order as defined in the 1985 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Rules. 3. The 1962 Supreme Court decision in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar clarified the scope of sedition, linking it directly to the maintenance of public order under the 1951 amendment to Article 19. 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 'Public Order' is a State List subject (Entry 1, List II) under the Seventh Schedule, not a Union List subject. Statement 2 is incorrect as TADA (1985/1987) was not based on the 1985 Rules, and the distinction between 'law and order' (local disturbance) and 'public order' (wider community impact) was established by the Supreme Court in cases like Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), not by TADA. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1951 First Amendment introduced 'public order' as a ground for restricting Article 19(1)(a), but the Kedar Nath Singh judgment focused on the constitutionality of Section 124A of the IPC, specifically ruling that sedition is only punishable if it incites 'public disorder' or violence, rather than linking it to the 1951 amendment.

Consider the following statements regarding Incitement to an offence: 1. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, originally passed in 1967, includes provisions for declaring associations unlawful if their activities encourage the incitement of offences against the state. 2. The 1950 Supreme Court ruling in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras clarified that public safety is a distinct ground for restriction, separate from the broader concept of public order found in the 1951 constitutional amendment. 3. Article 19(2) of the Constitution provides for reasonable restrictions on free speech, including grounds related to defamation, contempt of court, and the protection of sovereign integrity as defined in the 1948 Draft Constitution. 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, focuses on unlawful activities and terrorist acts, not specifically the 'incitement of offences' as a standalone ground for declaring associations unlawful. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Romesh Thappar case actually held that 'public safety' was not a ground for restriction under Article 19(2) at the time, which prompted the government to introduce the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, to add 'public order' as a specific ground. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1948 Draft Constitution did not include 'sovereignty and integrity of India' as a ground for restriction; this was added later by the 16th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963.

Consider the following statements regarding Security of the State threshold: 1. The Sedition Act of 1870 was drafted by the Law Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Macaulay, and it remains the primary legislative instrument governing the threshold for state security restrictions in the modern digital era. 2. The 1952 judgment in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras established that the term 'security of the state' encompasses minor breaches of public tranquility, thereby allowing the government to regulate speech that causes local administrative inconvenience. 3. The 1989 TADA Act introduced the definition of 'disruptive activities' to address speech-related threats, and the Supreme Court in the Kartar Singh case affirmed that these provisions operate independently of the reasonable restrictions listed in Article 19(2). 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 false because Section 124A was introduced in 1870 by James Fitzjames Stephen, not Lord Macaulay, and it has been effectively superseded by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Statement 2 is false as the Romesh Thappar judgment explicitly narrowed the scope of 'security of the State,' ruling that only aggravated forms of public disorder threatening the foundations of the State-not mere local breaches of tranquility-justify speech restrictions. Statement 3 is false because the Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab held that special laws like TADA must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional mandates, and they cannot override the fundamental rights or the reasonable restrictions framework established under Article 19(2).

Consider the following statements regarding Media trial and sub judice rule: 1. The Law Commission of India, in its 200th Report, suggested that the publication of prejudicial reports during the pendency of a trial should be treated as criminal contempt. 2. The Supreme Court's judgment in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) established the doctrine of sub judice, which limits the scope of public discourse regarding pending criminal trials. 3. The Press Council of India's 'Norms of Journalistic Conduct' advises media outlets to avoid reporting on sub judice matters in a manner that creates a presumption of guilt. 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 200th Law Commission Report (2006) recommended amending the Contempt of Courts Act to prohibit publication of prejudicial matter during pending trials. Statement 3 is correct because the Press Council of India's 'Norms of Journalistic Conduct' explicitly mandates that the media should not prejudice the course of justice or assume the guilt of an accused. Statement 2 is incorrect because A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) dealt with the validity of the Preventive Detention Act and Article 21, whereas the doctrine of sub judice is rooted in the Contempt of Courts Act and judicial precedents like Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012).

Consider the following statements regarding Public order vs Law and order distinction: 1. The 1971 Supreme Court judgment in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal established that the distinction between law and order and public order depends upon the potential of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community. 2. Article 19(2) of the Constitution was amended by the First Amendment Act of 1951 to include the term 'public order' as a specific ground for restricting freedom of speech and expression. 3. The Supreme Court in the 1966 Ram Manohar Lohia case distinguished public order from law and order by using the metaphor of three concentric circles representing the individual, the community, and the 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 Arun Ghosh case established the 'even tempo of life' test to differentiate between individual breaches of peace and broader public order issues. Statement 2 is correct because the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, introduced 'public order' as a ground for restriction to overcome the Supreme Court's ruling in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras. Statement 3 is correct as the Ram Manohar Lohia case famously used the concentric circles metaphor-where the smallest circle is law and order, the middle is public order, and the largest is the security of the state-to clarify the varying degrees of impact of criminal acts.

Consider the following statements regarding Blasphemy and religious sentiments: 1. The Supreme Court ruling in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) established that the anticipated danger of public disorder must be real and proximate to justify the suppression of free speech. 2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a signatory, includes Article 20 which prohibits any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination. 3. Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code penalizes the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, or residence. 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. All three statements are correct: the S. Rangarajan case (1989) famously established the 'proximate and direct' test to prevent the 'veto of the mob' from stifling free speech; India is a signatory to the ICCPR, and Article 20 mandates that any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law; furthermore, Section 153A of the IPC is a core provision enacted to maintain communal harmony by criminalizing acts that promote enmity between diverse groups on various grounds.

Consider the following statements regarding Right to privacy vs Right to speech: 1. The 1954 Press Council Act established the Press Council of India to regulate digital news content, and it currently serves as the primary appellate body for social media content moderation disputes. 2. The 1976 Forty-Second Amendment introduced the concept of 'reasonable restrictions' into Article 19(2), and this amendment currently governs the judicial review process for privacy-related speech litigation. 3. The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) held that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. 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 as the Supreme Court in the landmark 2017 Puttaswamy judgment unanimously declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Press Council of India was established by the Press Council Act of 1978, not 1954, and it has no jurisdiction over digital news or social media moderation. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2) were part of the original Constitution, not introduced by the 42nd Amendment, and judicial review of speech is governed by the doctrine of proportionality established by the judiciary, not by that specific amendment.

Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court Act 1971: 1. The 1971 Act provides for a maximum sentence of six months simple imprisonment or a fine up to two thousand rupees, a penalty structure that remains consistent with the original 1926 Contempt of Courts Act. 2. The Supreme Court of India in the E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar case clarified that the 1971 Act serves as the primary legislative instrument for regulating the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(2). 3. The Attorney General of India holds the authority to initiate criminal contempt proceedings suo motu under Section 15 of the 1971 Act, provided the consent of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court is obtained. 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 1971 Act introduced a maximum sentence of six months simple imprisonment or a fine of up to two thousand rupees, whereas the 1926 Act did not specify a penalty structure in the same manner. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Contempt of Courts Act is not a primary instrument for regulating Article 19(2), and the E.M.S. Namboodiripad case primarily dealt with the definition of contempt rather than establishing the Act as the regulatory framework for free speech. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Section 15 of the 1971 Act, criminal contempt can be initiated by the Supreme Court or High Court suo motu, or by the Attorney General (or Advocate General) with the consent of the court, but the Attorney General does not require the Chief Justice's consent to initiate proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Consider the following statements regarding Media trial and sub judice rule: 1. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt as the publication of any matter which lowers the authority of any court or prejudices any judicial proceeding. 2. In the R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) judgment, the court highlighted the potential of media trials to influence the outcome of criminal proceedings through biased reporting. 3. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech in relation to contempt of court. 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 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, explicitly defines criminal contempt to include the publication of matter that prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings. Statement 2 is correct because, in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009), the Supreme Court expressed deep concern over 'media trials' and the role of the press in influencing the administration of justice, emphasizing the need for judicial independence. Statement 3 is correct as Article 19(2) explicitly lists 'contempt of court' as one of the eight grounds upon which the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Consider the following statements regarding Sedition law and Kedar Nath Singh precedent: 1. The Sedition law was originally part of the 1860 Indian Penal Code, and the Kedar Nath Singh ruling clarified that the statute covers any speech that causes public inconvenience or traffic disruption. 2. The Law Commission of India in its 279th report suggested retaining Section 124A, and the Kedar Nath Singh verdict established that the law is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) regarding public order. 3. The Kedar Nath Singh judgment upheld the validity of Section 124A by introducing the 'tendency to incite violence' test, and the Supreme Court subsequently struck down the provision in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case. 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 124A was added to the IPC in 1870, and Kedar Nath Singh (1962) explicitly limited sedition to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder, not mere inconvenience. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 279th Law Commission report recommended retaining Section 124A, the Kedar Nath Singh verdict upheld it as a reasonable restriction on the 'freedom of speech and expression' under Article 19(2) specifically concerning the 'security of the State', not broadly for 'public order'. Statement 3 is incorrect because, although the verdict introduced the 'tendency to incite violence' test, the Supreme Court has never struck down Section 124A in the Kesavananda Bharati case or any other, though it remains under judicial review.

Consider the following statements regarding Anonymity in digital communication: 1. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, introduce a mechanism for the identification of the first originator of information in specific circumstances. 2. The Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment established that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which influences the discourse on digital anonymity. 3. The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, provides a framework for international cooperation regarding the collection of electronic evidence, though India is not a signatory to the treaty. 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 Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules, 2021, mandates significant social media intermediaries to enable the identification of the first originator of information upon a court order or competent authority request. Statement 2 is correct because the landmark 2017 Puttaswamy judgment declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21, establishing a legal threshold of necessity and proportionality for state interference in digital anonymity. Statement 3 is correct because while the 2001 Budapest Convention is the primary international treaty on cybercrime, India has consistently declined to sign it, citing concerns over sovereignty and the lack of consultative input during its drafting.

Consider the following statements regarding Section 66A of IT Act and Shreya Singhal verdict: 1. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology reviewed the 2008 amendment before its passage, recommending the inclusion of Section 66A to align Indian law with the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. 2. The 2009 Rules notified under the Information Technology Act provided the procedural framework for Section 66A, and these rules were simultaneously declared unconstitutional by the 2015 Supreme Court order. 3. The Supreme Court bench led by Justice J. Chelameswar delivered the Shreya Singhal verdict, which also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 79 of the IT Act regarding intermediary liability. 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 66A was introduced via a 2008 amendment without prior scrutiny by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment struck down Section 66A for being vague and overbroad, it upheld the validity of Section 79 (intermediary liability) subject to reading down 'actual knowledge' as a court order. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Shreya Singhal verdict was delivered by a bench led by Justice R.F. Nariman, not Justice J. Chelameswar.

Consider the following statements regarding Section 66A of IT Act and Shreya Singhal verdict: 1. The Shreya Singhal verdict held that Section 66A failed the test of 'vagueness' and lacked a proximate link to the grounds of reasonable restrictions listed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 2. The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued a formal notification in 2016 to remove Section 66A from the statute books following the judicial observations made in the Shreya Singhal case. 3. Section 66A was originally introduced into the Information Technology Act through the 2008 amendment, which came into effect in October 2009. 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 because the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A for being unconstitutionally vague and failing to fall within the ambit of Article 19(2) restrictions. Statement 3 is correct as Section 66A was indeed inserted via the 2008 Amendment to the IT Act, which became effective on October 27, 2009. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Union government did not issue a formal notification to remove the section; despite the court's verdict, the text of Section 66A continues to appear in the statute books, leading to its continued (and illegal) invocation by law enforcement agencies.

Consider the following statements regarding Public order vs Law and order distinction: 1. The 1950 Preventive Detention Act was introduced to address public order concerns, and it served as the primary legal framework for the 1952 Supreme Court ruling in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. 2. The 1980 National Security Act provides for detention to prevent acts prejudicial to public order, and it replaced the 1971 Maintenance of Internal Security Act following the 44th Constitutional Amendment. 3. The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure defines public order under Section 144, which allows District Magistrates to prohibit assemblies that threaten the tranquility of a specific geographical 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 the A.K. Gopalan case challenged the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, but the Act was not specifically introduced to define the distinction between public order and law and order. Statement 2 is incorrect because the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, was enacted to replace the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, which was repealed in 1977, not due to the 44th Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, does not provide a statutory definition of 'public order'; Section 144 empowers authorities to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger to prevent obstruction, annoyance, or injury to human life, but it does not formally define the term.

Consider the following statements regarding Anonymity in digital communication: 1. The Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) ruling invalidated the entirety of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and led to the drafting of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. 2. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, trace their legal origin to Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code and regulate the conduct of social media platforms. 3. The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, opened for signature in 2001, includes provisions for the protection of encrypted communications and establishes a global standard for data localization. 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 Shreya Singhal judgment only struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, not the entire Act. Statement 2 is incorrect as the 2021 Rules derive their authority from the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 87, rather than the Indian Penal Code. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Budapest Convention focuses on harmonizing national laws for cybercrime investigation and does not establish global data localization standards or mandate the protection of encrypted communications.

Consider the following statements regarding Sovereignty and integrity of India clause: 1. Parliamentary debates preceding the 1963 Act highlighted that the protection of territorial integrity was essential to prevent speech advocating for the secession of any part of the Union. 2. The 1963 Amendment Act was ratified by more than half of the state legislatures under the procedure for federal provisions, as it modified the fundamental rights of citizens residing in border states. 3. The phrase sovereignty and integrity of India appears in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as in the specific restrictive clauses of Article 19. 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 16th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963, was introduced following the Chinese aggression to curb secessionist tendencies and protect India's territorial integrity. Statement 3 is correct because 'sovereignty and integrity of India' is explicitly mentioned in the Preamble and was added to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) via the same 1963 Amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 16th Amendment did not require ratification by half of the state legislatures under Article 368(2), as it did not alter the federal structure or the representation of states in Parliament, but merely imposed additional restrictions on fundamental rights.

Consider the following statements regarding Sedition law and Kedar Nath Singh precedent: 1. The Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar case was decided by a five-judge bench in 1962, and the court determined that sedition charges are applicable to criticism of the judiciary but not the executive. 2. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was drafted by Thomas Macaulay in 1860, and the Supreme Court in the Kedar Nath Singh case ruled that the law applies only to acts involving the use of foreign currency. 3. The Sedition law was introduced in the Indian Penal Code in 1870 under the administration of Lord Mayo, and the Kedar Nath Singh judgment of 1962 held that the provision is unconstitutional. 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 Kedar Nath Singh judgment clarified that sedition applies only to acts inciting violence or public disorder, not mere criticism of the government or judiciary. Statement 2 is incorrect as Section 124A was introduced by an amendment in 1870, not by Macaulay in 1860, and the ruling has no relation to foreign currency. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the law was introduced in 1870, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A in the Kedar Nath Singh case, rather than striking it down.

Consider the following statements regarding Defamation as a criminal offence: 1. Under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment for criminal defamation can extend to simple imprisonment for a term of two years, or a fine, or both. 2. The First Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1951 introduced the term 'reasonable restrictions' to the grounds mentioned under Article 19(2). 3. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court distinguished between the concepts of defamation and the incitement to an offence. 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 500 of the IPC prescribes a maximum of two years imprisonment, a fine, or both for criminal defamation. Statement 2 is correct because the First Amendment Act, 1951, substituted the original grounds in Article 19(2) with 'reasonable restrictions' to ensure judicial oversight over state limitations on free speech. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) clarified that while defamation is a punishable offence, it must be distinguished from mere 'discussion' or 'advocacy' to prevent the misuse of speech-restricting laws.

Consider the following statements regarding Decency and morality standards: 1. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, introduce a grievance redressal mechanism for content that violates public order and decency standards. 2. Section 293 of the Indian Penal Code focuses on the sale of obscene objects to persons under the age of 21, mirroring the age threshold defined in the 1860 original draft of the Penal Code. 3. Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides for the punishment of individuals who publish or transmit material containing sexually explicit acts in electronic form. 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 IT Rules, 2021 mandate a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism to address content violating public order and decency. Statement 3 is correct because Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, specifically criminalizes the electronic publication or transmission of obscene or sexually explicit material. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 293 of the IPC sets the age threshold for the sale of obscene objects to persons under the age of 20, not 21.

Consider the following statements regarding Content-neutral vs content-based regulations: 1. Content-neutral regulations, such as time, place, and manner restrictions, are subject to intermediate scrutiny under the O'Brien test established by the U.S. Supreme Court. 2. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution was amended by the First Amendment Act of 1951 to include public order as a ground for restricting freedom of speech. 3. The Supreme Court in the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar judgment distinguished between speech that incites violence and speech that merely criticizes the government. 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 O'Brien test provides the legal framework for intermediate scrutiny of content-neutral regulations that incidentally restrict speech. Statement 2 is correct because the First Amendment Act, 1951, introduced 'public order' as a specific ground for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to overcome judicial rulings like Romesh Thappar. Statement 3 is correct because the Kedar Nath Singh judgment upheld the constitutionality of sedition by explicitly limiting its application to acts that incite violence or public disorder, distinguishing them from mere criticism of the government.

Consider the following statements regarding Defamation as a criminal offence: 1. The Law Commission of India in its 42nd Report recommended the complete decriminalization of defamation, and this proposal was subsequently incorporated into the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The Defamation Act of 1923 serves as the primary colonial-era legislation governing civil liability, and it functions alongside the Indian Penal Code to regulate criminal proceedings in high courts. 3. The 1960 Supreme Court judgment in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra clarified the distinction between criminal libel and slander, establishing that both are cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code. 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 Law Commission has never recommended the complete decriminalization of defamation in the 42nd Report, nor was such a provision added to the 1973 CrPC. There is no 'Defamation Act of 1923'; criminal defamation is governed solely by Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), and civil defamation is a matter of tort law, not a specific colonial statute. Finally, the K.M. Nanavati case dealt with the law of culpable homicide and the pardon power, not the distinction between libel and slander, and criminal defamation remains a non-cognizable and bailable offence.

Consider the following statements regarding Test of proximate nexus: 1. The Supreme Court in the 1950 Romesh Thappar case utilized the 'clear and present danger' doctrine, a principle originally formulated in the 1919 Schenck v. United States ruling. 2. The First Amendment Act of 1951 introduced the 'reasonable restriction' clause to Article 19, which mirrors the language found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 3. In the 1950 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras case, the Supreme Court held that public safety is not a ground for restricting speech unless it threatens the security of the State. 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 in Romesh Thappar (1950), the Supreme Court ruled that 'public safety' was not a ground for restriction under Article 19(2) at that time, prompting the First Amendment to include 'public order'. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Court rejected the 'clear and present danger' test in favor of a stricter 'proximate nexus' test, emphasizing that restrictions must be directly linked to the specific grounds mentioned in the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the First Amendment introduced 'reasonable restrictions', it was primarily a domestic legislative response to judicial rulings like Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan, rather than a direct adoption of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights language.

Consider the following statements regarding Right to privacy vs Right to speech: 1. The 1923 Indian Official Secrets Act allows the government to restrict the publication of sensitive information, and this statute serves as the legal basis for the current Right to Privacy framework under Article 19. 2. The 2019 Personal Data Protection Bill included a provision for the creation of a Data Protection Authority, and this body functions as the final arbiter for all defamation cases involving public figures. 3. The 1989 Official Secrets Act provides for the classification of government documents, and the Supreme Court in the 2018 privacy ruling extended these classification powers to private sector data processing. 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 statutes and judicial rulings. The Indian Official Secrets Act (1923) is a colonial-era law concerning espionage and does not serve as the legal basis for the Right to Privacy, which was established as a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017), not Article 19. Furthermore, the 2019 Personal Data Protection Bill did not empower a Data Protection Authority to adjudicate defamation cases, as defamation remains a judicial matter under the IPC/BNS, and the 2018 privacy ruling did not extend government document classification powers to the private sector.

Consider the following statements regarding Hate speech and legal definitions: 1. The Sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code originated in the 1860 draft by Lord Macaulay and was applied to the Indian legal framework through the 1898 amendment. 2. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution was amended by the First Amendment Act of 1951 to include 'public order' as a ground for restricting freedom of speech. 3. Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, or residence. 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 while Section 124A was drafted by Macaulay, it was not included in the original 1860 IPC but was inserted by the IPC (Amendment) Act of 1870. Statement 2 is correct as the First Amendment Act, 1951, introduced 'public order' as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) to overcome judicial rulings that had limited the state's power to regulate speech. Statement 3 is correct because Section 153A of the IPC explicitly penalizes acts that promote disharmony or feelings of enmity between different religious, racial, or linguistic groups.

Consider the following statements regarding Right to privacy vs Right to speech: 1. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, introduced a grievance redressal mechanism for users to challenge content takedowns by social media platforms. 2. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order. 3. In the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for being vague and overbroad in its impact on free speech. 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 2021 IT Rules mandate a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism, allowing users to appeal against content moderation decisions. Statement 2 is correct because Article 19(2) explicitly lists 'public order' alongside other grounds like sovereignty and integrity as valid reasons for imposing reasonable restrictions on free speech. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) declared Section 66A unconstitutional, ruling that its undefined terms created a 'chilling effect' on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Consider the following statements regarding Incitement to an offence: 1. The First Amendment to the Constitution of India, enacted in 1951, introduced the phrase 'in the interests of public order' as a ground for limiting freedom of speech. 2. The Supreme Court judgment in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld the constitutionality of sedition laws while limiting their application to acts involving an actual incitement to violence. 3. The Sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code traces its origins to the 1860 draft by Lord Macaulay, which was subsequently incorporated into the Code during the 1870 amendment. 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 because the First Amendment Act, 1951, added 'public order' as a reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(a) to overcome judicial rulings that had narrowed the state's power to regulate speech. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar did uphold Section 124A, it required the 'tendency to create disorder' or 'incitement to violence' rather than just 'actual incitement' to constitute the offence. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 124A was not part of the original 1860 Indian Penal Code drafted by Macaulay; it was specifically inserted by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870, to suppress anti-colonial dissent.

Consider the following statements regarding Restrictions on internet shutdowns: 1. The Department of Telecommunications is associated with the maintenance of a centralized database of shutdown orders, which was established following the 2017 Rules to facilitate judicial review by the High Courts. 2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a signatory, includes provisions in Article 19 that allow for the restriction of internet access during civil unrest provided such actions are notified to the United Nations Human Rights Council. 3. The Supreme Court judgment in the Anuradha Bhasin case includes provisions for the publication of all internet shutdown orders in the Official Gazette, and this practice is currently monitored by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. 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 2017 Suspension Rules do not mandate a centralized database, and the responsibility for issuing orders lies with the Home Secretary of the Union or State. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 19 of the ICCPR protects freedom of expression and does not contain any provision requiring the notification of internet shutdowns to the UN Human Rights Council. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Anuradha Bhasin (2020) judgment mandated that shutdown orders must be published to ensure transparency, it did not assign the monitoring of this practice to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, nor is there a centralized mechanism for such publication.

Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court Act 1971: 1. Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was amended in 2006 to provide that the court may permit justification by truth as a valid defense if it is in the public interest. 2. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court. 3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted following the recommendations of the Sanyal Committee, which proposed the inclusion of fair criticism of judicial administrative acts as a form of criminal contempt. 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 2006 amendment to Section 13 allows 'truth' as a valid defense if the court is satisfied that such a plea is made in good faith and in the public interest. Statement 2 is correct because Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act explicitly defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, or writ. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Sanyal Committee actually recommended that fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts should be excluded from the definition of criminal contempt to protect freedom of speech, rather than including it as a form of contempt.

Consider the following statements regarding Blasphemy and religious sentiments: 1. The Supreme Court decision in the 1962 Kedarnath Singh case addressed the scope of sedition and provided for the immediate repeal of Section 295A to align with international human rights standards. 2. The 1927 amendment to the Indian Penal Code added Section 295A to the statute, which was subsequently integrated into the 1950 Constitution as a fundamental right under Article 25. 3. Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1927 following the Rangila Rasul case to address deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. 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 as Section 295A was enacted in 1927 following the Rangila Rasul case to criminalize deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Statement 1 is false because the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh case upheld the constitutionality of sedition (Section 124A) and did not mandate the repeal of Section 295A. Statement 2 is false because Section 295A is a statutory provision under the IPC, not a fundamental right under Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.

Consider the following statements regarding Security of the State threshold: 1. In the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code while limiting its application to acts involving incitement to violence. 2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979, permits restrictions on freedom of expression provided they are necessary for the protection of national security or public order. 3. The First Amendment to the Constitution of India, enacted in 1951, introduced the phrase 'public order' as a specific ground for restricting freedom of speech under Article 19(2). 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. All three statements are correct: the Kedar Nath Singh judgment (1962) narrowed sedition to acts inciting violence to prevent misuse; India ratified the ICCPR in 1979, which under Article 19(3) allows speech restrictions for national security and public order; and the First Amendment (1951) was specifically introduced to include 'public order' as a ground for restriction following the Supreme Court's ruling in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, which had initially limited the state's power to restrict speech.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of proportionality in speech: 1. The proportionality test adopted by Indian courts draws its conceptual framework from the 1950 German Basic Law, specifically the principle of 'Verhältnismäßigkeit'. 2. The 2018 Shreya Singhal judgment struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, citing the doctrine of vagueness while explicitly excluding the proportionality test from the court's final analysis. 3. The 1962 Defence of India Act provided the first legislative framework for speech restrictions during emergencies, incorporating a proportionality test that was later upheld in the ADM Jabalpur case. 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 Indian Supreme Court formally adopted the four-pronged proportionality test (legitimacy, suitability, necessity, and balancing) from German jurisprudence, notably through the Puttaswamy (2017) judgment. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Shreya Singhal (2015) judgment did not exclude the proportionality test; rather, it relied on the 'chilling effect' and overbreadth doctrines, which are integral components of modern proportionality analysis. Statement 3 is incorrect because the ADM Jabalpur (1976) case is infamous for suspending the right to life and liberty during an emergency, and the proportionality test was not a feature of the 1962 Defence of India Act.

Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of proportionality in speech: 1. The 2005 Right to Information Act contains a proportionality clause in Section 8(2), which allows public authorities to balance disclosure against the harm caused to protected interests. 2. The Supreme Court of India in the 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy judgment applied the four-pronged proportionality test to evaluate the legitimacy of state restrictions on fundamental rights. 3. The Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) ruling established that any order suspending internet services is subject to the proportionality doctrine under Article 19 of the Constitution. 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 8(2) of the RTI Act pertains to the 'public interest override' rather than a formal proportionality doctrine. Statement 2 is correct as the 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy judgment established the four-pronged test (legality, legitimate goal, suitability, and necessity) to determine if state interference with fundamental rights is proportionate. Statement 3 is correct because the 2020 Anuradha Bhasin ruling mandated that internet suspension orders must satisfy the proportionality test to ensure that the restriction is the least restrictive measure possible under Article 19.

Consider the following statements regarding Restrictions on internet shutdowns: 1. The Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, in its 2021 report, recommended that the Department of Telecommunications formulate a standardized protocol for internet shutdowns to ensure proportionality and transparency. 2. The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, were amended in 2020 to introduce a maximum duration of 15 days for any single internet suspension order issued by the competent authority. 3. The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) held that the freedom of speech and expression through the medium of the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 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 2021 Parliamentary Standing Committee report emphasized the need for a standardized protocol to prevent arbitrary shutdowns. Statement 2 is correct because the 2020 amendment to the 2017 Rules introduced a 15-day cap on suspension orders to ensure periodic review and accountability. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) explicitly ruled that internet access is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and must adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity.

Consider the following statements regarding Incitement to an offence: 1. Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code covers the promotion of disharmony between different religious groups, a provision that was expanded during the 1969 amendment to include acts prejudicial to national integration. 2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979, contains Article 20, which provides for the prohibition of any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination. 3. Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code addresses the creation or promotion of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes through the publication of statements intended to incite an offence. 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 as Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC penalizes statements creating enmity or ill-will between classes likely to incite an offence against the state or public tranquility. Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 153A was expanded to include acts prejudicial to national integration by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1972, not 1969. Statement 2 is incorrect because India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979 with a specific reservation stating that Article 20 would be applied in conformity with the existing domestic laws, such as Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, rather than adopting it in its entirety.

Consider the following statements regarding Sovereignty and integrity of India clause: 1. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. 2. The Sixteenth Amendment Act of 1963 introduced the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India as a limitation on the freedom of speech and expression. 3. The First Amendment Act of 1951 incorporated the sovereignty and integrity of India clause into Article 19(2) to align with the recommendations of the Nehru-Liakat Pact. 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 Article 19(2) explicitly lists 'sovereignty and integrity of India' as a valid ground for imposing reasonable restrictions on free speech. Statement 2 is correct because the Sixteenth Amendment Act of 1963 was specifically enacted to protect the nation's territorial integrity against secessionist tendencies. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 'sovereignty and integrity' clause was added by the 1963 Amendment, not the First Amendment of 1951, which primarily introduced grounds like 'public order' and 'friendly relations with foreign states'.

Consider the following statements regarding Contempt of Court Act 1971: 1. The definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the 1971 Act encompasses the publication of any matter that lowers the authority of a court, a provision that was introduced to align with the 1952 Contempt of Courts Act. 2. Under the 1971 Act, the Supreme Court and High Courts possess the power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts as per the provisions of Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution. 3. The limitation period for initiating proceedings for contempt of court is one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, as per Section 20 of the 1971 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 while the 1971 Act defines criminal contempt, it actually narrowed the scope compared to the 1952 Act by introducing the 'scandalizing the court' provision as a specific statutory definition rather than just aligning with previous laws. Statement 2 is correct as Articles 129 and 215 designate the Supreme Court and High Courts as 'Courts of Record,' granting them inherent powers to punish for contempt, including that of their subordinate courts. Statement 3 is correct because Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, explicitly imposes a mandatory one-year limitation period for initiating any contempt proceedings from the date the alleged act occurred.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions: 1. Article 19(2) currently encompasses eight specific grounds for restricting freedom of speech, including sovereignty and integrity of India, which was added by the 16th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1963. 2. The ground of 'public order' was added to the list of permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) following the Supreme Court judgment in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras. 3. The First Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1951 introduced the term 'reasonable restrictions' to Article 19(2) to qualify the freedom of speech and expression. 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 16th Amendment (1963) added 'sovereignty and integrity of India' to the original list, bringing the total grounds to eight. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court's ruling in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) highlighted the absence of 'public order' as a ground, prompting the government to introduce it via the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951. Statement 3 is correct as the 1st Amendment introduced the term 'reasonable restrictions' to ensure that state limitations on free speech are subject to judicial review for fairness and proportionality.

Consider the following statements regarding Prior restraint and censorship: 1. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 introduced a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism for digital news publishers. 2. The Press Council of India, constituted under the Press Council Act of 1978, functions as a quasi-judicial body to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies. 3. The 1973 judgment in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India ruled that the government cannot impose restrictions on the number of pages in newspapers under the guise of newsprint control. 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 IT Rules 2021 mandate a three-tier grievance redressal structure for digital news publishers, involving self-regulation, self-regulatory bodies, and an inter-departmental committee. Statement 2 is correct because the Press Council of India, established under the 1978 Act, acts as a quasi-judicial watchdog to uphold journalistic ethics and standards. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Bennett Coleman & Co. (1973) struck down newsprint quotas, ruling that such restrictions violated Article 19(1)(a) by limiting the freedom of the press under the guise of economic regulation.

Consider the following statements regarding Anonymity in digital communication: 1. The Information Technology Act, 2000, incorporates the recommendations of the 1996 UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce and provides for the legal recognition of digital signatures in Section 5. 2. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. 3. The Supreme Court of India in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for being vague and overbroad. 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 while the IT Act, 2000, was influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, Section 5 provides for the legal recognition of 'electronic signatures' (amended in 2008), not merely 'digital signatures'. Statement 2 is correct as Article 19(2) explicitly lists sovereignty and integrity of India as valid grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions on speech. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) declared Section 66A unconstitutional, ruling that its vague and overbroad language created a 'chilling effect' on free speech.

Consider the following statements regarding Media trial and sub judice rule: 1. The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 introduced the 'truth' defense for journalists, and it serves as the primary legal instrument for regulating digital media reporting on ongoing investigations. 2. The Supreme Court in the Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) case recognized the power of courts to pass postponement orders to protect the administration of justice. 3. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides for the Programme Code, which restricts the broadcast of content that criticizes the judiciary, and this code was extended to social media platforms in 2021. 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 Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) upheld the power of courts to issue 'postponement orders' to balance the right to free speech with the right to a fair trial. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 introduced 'truth' as a valid defense for contempt, but it does not regulate digital media reporting on investigations, which remains governed by broader judicial guidelines and IT Rules. Statement 3 is incorrect because while the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 restricts content that criticizes the judiciary, these rules are specific to television broadcasters and were not extended to social media platforms by the 2021 IT Rules, which instead introduced a separate grievance redressal mechanism for digital news publishers.

Consider the following statements regarding Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions: 1. The Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case observed that the state can impose restrictions on fundamental rights provided such limitations are reasonable and serve a public purpose. 2. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with sedition, has been challenged in the Supreme Court, with the 2022 S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India order directing a stay on its operation. 3. The 16th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1963 introduced the ground of 'friendly relations with foreign states' to Article 19(2) to address concerns regarding border security during the Sino-Indian conflict. 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 judiciary consistently upholds that restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) must be reasonable and serve a public interest. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) effectively stayed the operation of Section 124A, directing the government to refrain from registering new sedition cases pending review. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 16th Constitutional Amendment Act (1963) added 'sovereignty and integrity of India' as a ground for restriction, whereas 'friendly relations with foreign states' was introduced earlier by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951.

Consider the following statements regarding Hate speech and legal definitions: 1. The 267th Report of the Law Commission of India suggested the insertion of Sections 153C and 505A into the Indian Penal Code to specifically address hate speech. 2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by India in 1979, includes Article 20 which suggests that any advocacy of national hatred constitutes incitement to discrimination. 3. The Supreme Court in the Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) case adopted the 'imminent lawless action' test from the American Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling to define the scope of speech restrictions. 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 267th Law Commission Report (2017) recommended amending the IPC to include Sections 153C and 505A to curb hate speech. Statement 2 is incorrect because while India ratified the ICCPR in 1979, Article 20 specifically mandates that any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Supreme Court did refer to the 'imminent lawless action' test in Arup Bhuyan, it was in the context of interpreting membership in banned organizations, and the court has not formally adopted the Brandenburg test as the universal standard for all speech restrictions in India.

Consider the following statements regarding Content-neutral vs content-based regulations: 1. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979, provides in Article 19(3) that restrictions on speech should be provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights of others. 2. The 1989 Express Newspapers v. Union of India case addressed the validity of the Working Journalists Act and introduced the strict scrutiny standard for reviewing government regulations affecting newspaper publication schedules. 3. The 1950 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras judgment invalidated the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, and established the doctrine of preferred position for freedom of speech in the Indian legal framework. 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 India ratified the ICCPR in 1979, and Article 19(3) mandates that speech restrictions must be prescribed by law and serve legitimate interests like public order or the rights of others. Statement 2 is incorrect because while Express Newspapers (1958) dealt with the Working Journalists Act, it did not introduce the 'strict scrutiny' standard, which is a US constitutional doctrine not formally adopted in Indian jurisprudence. Statement 3 is incorrect because, although Romesh Thappar (1950) was a landmark case that invalidated the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act for being too broad, the 'preferred position' doctrine was actually articulated by the Supreme Court in the later case of Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972).

Consider the following statements regarding Restrictions on internet shutdowns: 1. The Information Technology Act, 2000, provides for the regulation of electronic records, and its Section 69A is associated with the 2017 Rules governing the temporary suspension of telecom services during public emergencies. 2. The 2020 amendment to the 2017 Suspension Rules refers to the oversight of the Review Committee, which includes the Cabinet Secretary and is empowered to revoke state-level suspension orders within 24 hours of receipt. 3. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) encompasses the power to review suspension orders under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and issued guidelines in 2019 regarding the restoration of services within 48 hours. 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 internet shutdowns are governed by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, which were notified under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, not the IT Act, 2000. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 2017 Rules (and subsequent amendments) mandate that suspension orders issued by state authorities must be reviewed by a committee headed by the Chief Secretary, not the Cabinet Secretary, and there is no 24-hour revocation mandate. Statement 3 is incorrect as the TRAI has no statutory power to review suspension orders; such oversight rests with the Review Committee established under the 2017 Rules, and no such 48-hour restoration guideline exists.

Free Speech Restrictions Practice

Performance Summary

Choose a Topic to Start Practice

Daily Current Affairs