Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of 'public order' versus 'law and order' in detention cases:
1. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was the first post-independence legislation that provided for the detention of individuals without trial, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court as being consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19.
2. In the 1973 A.K. Roy v. Union of India judgment, the court held that preventive detention is a necessary evil and that the executive has the final authority to determine the scope of public order without judicial interference.
3. Judicial interpretation of the 1971 Maintenance of Internal Security Act suggests that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is subject to the same evidentiary standards as a criminal trial 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 in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court held that preventive detention laws need not satisfy the reasonableness test of Article 19, effectively insulating them from such scrutiny at the time. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court, in A.K. Roy (1982), emphasized that while preventive detention is a 'necessary evil,' the court retains the power of judicial review to ensure the executive's 'subjective satisfaction' is not arbitrary or based on irrelevant grounds. Statement 3 is incorrect because the courts have consistently maintained that preventive detention is a precautionary measure, not a punitive one; therefore, it does not require the strict evidentiary standards of a criminal trial under the IPC, provided the grounds for detention are not vague or extraneous.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional validity of Article 22(3) to 22(7):
1. The composition of the Advisory Board under Article 22(4)(a) consists of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court.
2. The Supreme Court in the A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) case upheld the constitutional validity of the National Security Act while emphasizing the necessity of procedural safeguards for detainees.
3. Parliament is empowered by Article 22(7)(a) to prescribe the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board.
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 22(4)(a) mandates that Advisory Boards consist of persons qualified to be High Court judges. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) upheld the National Security Act, 1980, while stressing that procedural compliance is essential to prevent the abuse of preventive detention. Statement 3 is correct as Article 22(7)(a) grants Parliament the authority to enact laws allowing detention beyond three months without an Advisory Board's opinion under specified circumstances.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural safeguards under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980:
1. The Advisory Board constituted under the National Security Act consists of a Chairman and at least two other members who are or have been judges of a High Court.
2. The National Security Act of 1980 was enacted by the Parliament of India on 27 December 1980 to replace the earlier National Security Ordinance of 1980.
3. Under Section 10 of the Act, the government is tasked with placing the detention order and the grounds for such order before the Advisory Board within three weeks of the detention.
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 9 of the NSA mandates that the Advisory Board must consist of a Chairman and at least two other members who are qualified to be or have been High Court judges. Statement 2 is correct because the NSA was enacted on 27 December 1980 to provide a permanent legal framework, succeeding the National Security Ordinance promulgated earlier that year. Statement 3 is correct as Section 10 explicitly requires the appropriate government to place the detention order and the grounds for detention before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of legal representation before Advisory Boards:
1. Section 11 of the National Security Act specifies the criteria for Advisory Board appointments, and the 1990 judicial guidelines established that legal representation is a procedural necessity for detainees.
2. The Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act of 1951 formalised the role of retired High Court judges in Advisory Boards, and it provided for the inclusion of legal practitioners in the board's advisory capacity.
3. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act modified the duration of detention without board review, and it concurrently granted detainees the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board.
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 National Security Act (NSA) and other preventive detention laws explicitly prohibit legal representation before an Advisory Board, as per Section 11(4) of the NSA. Statement 1 is false as the law denies, rather than mandates, legal representation; Statement 2 is false because the 1951 Act did not permit legal practitioners to represent detainees; and Statement 3 is false because the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (not the 42nd) reduced the period of detention without board review from three months to two, while maintaining the statutory bar on legal representation.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police in issuing detention orders:
1. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 established the initial framework for administrative detention, and it remains the primary statute governing the appointment of Advisory Boards in all Union Territories.
2. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, introduced the provision for the Commissioner of Police to act as the final appellate authority for reviewing detention orders issued by subordinate executive magistrates.
3. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the District Magistrate is authorized to extend the duration of a detention order beyond the initial twelve-month limit if the state police report indicates ongoing public order concerns.
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 Preventive Detention Act, 1950 expired in 1969, and current detention is governed by state-specific laws or the National Security Act, 1980, not the 1950 Act. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Commissioner of Police is an issuing authority, not an appellate authority, and TADA was a substantive criminal law rather than a procedural review mechanism for executive magistrates. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Code of Criminal Procedure does not govern preventive detention, and under Article 22(4) of the Constitution, detention beyond three months requires the report of an Advisory Board, not merely a police report or executive extension.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police in issuing detention orders:
1. The Commissioner of Police in a metropolitan area, when empowered by the State Government under the National Security Act, exercises the same detention powers as a District Magistrate within their respective jurisdiction.
2. Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India provides that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause.
3. Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, the State Government possesses the authority to empower a District Magistrate to issue detention orders for a period not exceeding three months.
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 3(3) of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, explicitly empowers the State Government to confer detention powers upon a Commissioner of Police in metropolitan areas, equivalent to those of a District Magistrate. Statement 2 is correct because Article 22(4) mandates that preventive detention cannot exceed three months unless an Advisory Board, consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges, reports that there is sufficient cause for extended detention. Statement 3 is correct because Section 3(2) of the NSA allows the State Government to delegate the power to issue detention orders to District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police, with the initial order limited to three months, subject to subsequent approval by the Advisory Board.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of legal representation before Advisory Boards:
1. The Preventive Detention laws enacted in 1950 were influenced by the UK's Defence of the Realm Act, and the subsequent 1978 legal reforms provided for the automatic right to legal assistance in all detention cases.
2. Under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), the Advisory Board functions as a quasi-judicial body, and it permits the appearance of legal counsel for the detained individual.
3. The Supreme Court judgment in the Gopalan case (1950) interpreted the scope of Article 22, and it held that the denial of legal representation before an Advisory Board violates the principles of natural justice.
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 44th Amendment (1978) did not provide an automatic right to legal assistance; in fact, it explicitly stated that no law shall authorize the detention of a person for more than two months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause. Statement 2 is incorrect as the COFEPOSA Act, like most preventive detention laws, explicitly bars the appearance of legal counsel before the Advisory Board to maintain the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings. Statement 3 is incorrect because the A.K. Gopalan case (1950) actually upheld the validity of preventive detention laws and did not establish that the denial of legal representation violates natural justice; the court maintained a narrow, literal interpretation of 'procedure established by law'.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of 'proximate link' in the context of detention orders:
1. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the detaining authority is obligated to provide the detenu with the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order.
2. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of 1974 incorporates the proximate link doctrine as a statutory requirement for the initial detention period of three months.
3. The doctrine of 'proximate link' in preventive detention cases was significantly elaborated by the Supreme Court in the 1981 case of Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah.
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 Article 22(5) mandates the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention and afford the earliest opportunity for representation. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah (1981) emphasized that a live and proximate link must exist between the past conduct of the detenu and the activity sought to be prevented. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 'proximate link' doctrine is a judicial creation derived from Article 21 and 22 jurisprudence rather than a statutory requirement explicitly codified within the COFEPOSA Act of 1974.
Consider the following statements regarding Grounds for revocation of detention orders by the appropriate government:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contains provisions that permit the District Magistrate to review detention orders every six months to ensure compliance with the guidelines set by the National Human Rights Commission.
2. Judicial review of preventive detention orders is governed by the principles laid down in the A.K. Gopalan case, which allows the High Court to examine the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the necessity of the order.
3. The Advisory Board constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, consists of three members who hold the final authority to confirm the revocation of a detention order issued by the state government.
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 power to revoke detention orders is vested in the appropriate government under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and specific statutes like the NSA, not the CrPC, and there is no such six-month review mandate by the NHRC. Statement 2 is incorrect as the A.K. Gopalan case (1950) adopted a narrow view that courts cannot examine the 'subjective satisfaction' of the detaining authority; this was later expanded by the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) to include procedural fairness. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Advisory Board's role is to report whether there is sufficient cause for detention, and the final authority to confirm or revoke the order rests with the appropriate government, not the Board.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial reviewability of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority:
1. The National Security Act of 1980 allows the appropriate government to extend the period of detention beyond three months only after obtaining a report from an Advisory Board constituted under Section 9.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced Article 22(4), which provides for the reduction of the maximum period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months.
3. The Supreme Court observed in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974) that preventive detention is a necessary evil to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the state or public order.
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 National Security Act, 1980, mandates that detention beyond three months requires an Advisory Board's opinion that there is sufficient cause. Statement 3 is correct because, in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of preventive detention, characterizing it as a 'necessary evil' to protect the state's security and public order. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the 44th Amendment Act (1978) sought to reduce the detention period without an Advisory Board from three months to two months, this specific provision was never brought into force by the government, meaning the original three-month limit under Article 22(4) remains operative.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional status of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as a preventive measure:
1. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was originally enacted in 1967 to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations.
2. The 2008 amendment to the UAPA incorporated the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and it established the National Investigation Agency to handle cases involving inter-state cyber-crimes.
3. The UAPA was introduced following the recommendations of the 1962 National Integration Council, and it currently serves as the primary legislation governing the detention of foreign nationals under the Foreigners Act of 1946.
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 UAPA was enacted in 1967 to curb secessionist activities and protect India's sovereignty. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 2008 amendment incorporated anti-terror provisions, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was established to investigate terror-related offenses, not inter-state cyber-crimes. Statement 3 is incorrect because the UAPA is a distinct anti-terror law and does not govern the detention of foreign nationals, which is primarily regulated under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of the 44th Constitutional Amendment on preventive detention timelines:
1. Article 22(4) of the Constitution, as amended by the 44th Amendment, specifies that an Advisory Board shall consist of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as judges of a High Court.
2. The 44th Amendment introduced a provision to ensure that the Chairman of the Advisory Board is a serving judge of the appropriate High Court, nominated by the Chief Justice.
3. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 reduced the maximum period for which a person could be detained without obtaining an opinion from an Advisory Board from three months to two months.
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 as the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, introduced critical safeguards for preventive detention. Statement 1 and 2 are accurate because the amendment mandated that Advisory Boards must consist of persons qualified to be High Court judges, with the Chairman specifically being a serving High Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice. Statement 3 is also correct, as the amendment reduced the maximum period of detention without an Advisory Board's opinion from three months to two months to strengthen individual liberty.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of Article 21 protections to preventive detention:
1. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) established that any law providing for preventive detention must satisfy the requirements of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Under the National Security Act of 1980, the detaining authority is obligated to communicate the grounds of detention to the person concerned as soon as possible, but not later than five days from the date of detention.
3. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a provision to reduce the period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, though this specific clause remains unnotified.
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 because the Maneka Gandhi judgment established the 'Golden Triangle' test, requiring preventive detention laws to be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and fair under Articles 14, 19, and 21. Statement 2 is correct as Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, mandates that the detaining authority communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee as soon as possible, and ordinarily not later than five days. Statement 3 is correct because the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, sought to reduce the maximum period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, but this specific provision has not been brought into force by the government to date.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural requirements for communication of grounds of detention:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 modified Article 22(4) to provide that the Advisory Board shall consist of a Chairman and at least three other members who are qualified to be appointed as High Court judges.
2. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides that the authority making an order of preventive detention shall communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee as soon as may be.
3. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was repealed in 1969, and the subsequent Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) of 1971 introduced a provision for the automatic release of detainees if the grounds were not served within 48 hours.
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 Article 22(5) mandates that the detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee as soon as possible to enable them to make a representation. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment Act (1978) specified that the Advisory Board must consist of a Chairman and other members who are or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as High Court judges, but it did not mandate a minimum of 'three' other members. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while MISA (1971) was enacted after the Preventive Detention Act (1969), it contained no provision for the automatic release of detainees based on a 48-hour deadline for serving grounds of detention.
Consider the following statements regarding Right of the detenu to make a representation against the detention order:
1. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides the detenu the right to make a representation against the detention order at the earliest opportunity.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 allowed for a maximum detention period of six months and established the initial procedural framework for the detenu to submit a petition to the District Magistrate.
3. The Supreme Court in the A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) case affirmed that the detenu has a constitutional right to be informed of the grounds of detention.
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 Article 22(5) mandates that the authority must communicate the grounds of detention and afford the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation. Statement 3 is correct because in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional obligation to provide the detenu with the grounds of detention to facilitate an effective representation. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, did not stipulate a maximum detention period of six months nor did it mandate a petition process to the District Magistrate; rather, it allowed detention for up to 12 months in certain cases and required the case to be placed before an Advisory Board.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence of Parliament vs State Legislatures under the Seventh Schedule:
1. Article 22(4) of the Constitution allows for preventive detention beyond three months, and the Parliament exercised this power to establish the Central Advisory Board under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of 1974.
2. Entry 9 of the Union List covers preventive detention for the security of India, and the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 transferred this specific legislative competence to the Concurrent List.
3. The Constitution provides for the detention of persons for the maintenance of public order under Entry 3 of the Concurrent List, which was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 to align with the National Security Act of 1980.
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 22(4) does not empower Parliament to establish a 'Central' Advisory Board; instead, it mandates that Advisory Boards consist of persons qualified to be High Court judges, and the 44th Amendment Act actually restricted the detention period without board approval from three months to two months. Statement 2 is incorrect because Entry 9 of the Union List (preventive detention for reasons connected with Defence, Foreign Affairs, or the security of India) remains in the Union List and was never transferred to the Concurrent List. Statement 3 is incorrect because 'public order' is covered under Entry 3 of the State List (List II), not the Concurrent List, and the National Security Act of 1980 derives its authority from Entry 9 of the Union List (security of India) and Entry 3 of the State List (public order).
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional validity of Article 22(3) to 22(7):
1. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was the first central legislation enacted by the Parliament to provide for preventive detention in certain cases, remaining in force until its expiry in 1969.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 modified Article 22(7)(b) to establish a maximum duration of six months for preventive detention without the intervention of an Advisory Board.
3. Article 22(6) permits the authority making the order of detention to withhold facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.
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 Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was the first such central law, remaining in force until 1969. Statement 3 is correct because Article 22(6) explicitly allows detaining authorities to withhold facts considered against the public interest. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 (not the 42nd) reduced the period of detention without an Advisory Board from three months to two months, and the 42nd Amendment did not establish a six-month limit.
Consider the following statements regarding Right of the detenu to make a representation against the detention order:
1. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) of 1974 incorporates the 1971 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the immediate legal representation of the detenu by a counsel.
2. Under the National Security Act of 1980, the appropriate government is tasked with forwarding the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board within three weeks of detention.
3. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, as amended in 2004, provides for the constitution of a Review Committee chaired by a sitting Supreme Court judge to evaluate the detenu's representation within a ten-day window.
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 the National Security Act, 1980, the government must provide the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation and forward it to the Advisory Board within three weeks. Statement 1 is incorrect because preventive detention laws generally deny the right to legal representation by a counsel, and COFEPOSA does not incorporate such a provision. Statement 3 is incorrect because the UAPA review committee is chaired by a sitting or retired judge of a High Court, not the Supreme Court, and the statute does not mandate a ten-day window for evaluating representations.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of the 44th Constitutional Amendment on preventive detention timelines:
1. Prior to the enactment of the 44th Amendment, the Constitution allowed the detention of a person for a period longer than three months if an Advisory Board reported sufficient cause for such detention.
2. The constitutional requirement for an Advisory Board was first introduced by the 42nd Amendment, and the 44th Amendment subsequently adjusted the membership criteria to include district-level judicial officers.
3. The 44th Amendment incorporated a new clause into Article 21, which provides that the procedure for preventive detention is subject to judicial review based on the principles of natural justice.
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 Article 22(4) originally permitted detention beyond three months if an Advisory Board reported sufficient cause. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Advisory Board requirement was part of the original Constitution, not the 42nd Amendment, and the 44th Amendment mandated that the Board be chaired by a sitting judge of a High Court rather than district-level officers. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment did not amend Article 21 to include such a clause; instead, it sought to reduce the maximum period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, though this specific provision was never brought into force.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between punitive and preventive detention in Indian jurisprudence:
1. Punitive detention occurs after an offense is committed and is subject to a trial by a court of law under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, was introduced to combat insurgency in Punjab, and it provided for the establishment of special courts to conduct trials for preventive detention cases.
3. Preventive detention involves the confinement of a person without trial to prevent them from committing a future act prejudicial to the state, as authorized by Article 22 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 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as punitive detention is a post-conviction measure following a fair trial under the CrPC, while Statement 3 is correct because Article 22 provides the constitutional framework for preventive detention, allowing the state to detain individuals to prevent future harm without a prior trial. Statement 2 is incorrect because while TADA (1985) was enacted to combat terrorism, it primarily dealt with punitive measures for specific terrorist acts through special courts, rather than being a preventive detention law, and it was not exclusively tied to Punjab insurgency.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural safeguards under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980:
1. The National Security Act of 1980 allows the central or state government to detain a person to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of India.
2. The National Security Act of 1980 includes provisions for the legal representation of a detenu before the Advisory Board, which aligns with the judicial review standards established in the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Section 8 of the National Security Act provides that the grounds for the detention order shall be communicated to the detenu within five days from the date of detention.
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 NSA empowers the government to detain individuals to prevent acts prejudicial to the security of India, foreign relations, or public order. Statement 3 is correct because Section 8 mandates that the detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu as soon as possible, but no later than five days (extendable to ten days under exceptional circumstances). Statement 2 is incorrect because the NSA explicitly denies the detenu the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board, a provision that deviates from standard criminal procedure to ensure the swift nature of preventive detention.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural requirements for communication of grounds of detention:
1. Under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974, the grounds of detention are served to the person at the time of their arrest or as soon as practicable thereafter.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950, which was the first such central legislation post-independence, contained specific clauses regarding the communication of grounds to the detainee within five days of the order.
3. The Supreme Court judgment in the Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974) case clarified that the failure to furnish grounds of detention within the prescribed time limit renders the detention order invalid.
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 3(3) of COFEPOSA mandates that grounds of detention must be communicated to the detainee as soon as possible, not exceeding five days, to ensure the right to representation. Statement 2 is correct because the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, explicitly required the authority to communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee within five days (extendable to ten in exceptional circumstances) to uphold Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974) affirmed that the procedural safeguard of communicating grounds is a mandatory constitutional requirement, and any failure to adhere to these timelines violates the detainee's fundamental rights, rendering the detention order invalid.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of 'proximate link' in the context of detention orders:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 modified Article 22 to include a specific timeline of 15 days for the Advisory Board to review detention orders based on the proximate link doctrine.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 introduced the concept of the 'proximate link' to align Indian jurisprudence with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights provisions on arbitrary arrest.
3. In the 1975 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case, the Supreme Court established the proximate link test as a judicial mechanism to evaluate the validity of detention orders issued during a national emergency.
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 doctrine of 'proximate link' is a judicial construct developed by the Supreme Court to ensure a live, rational connection between the past conduct of a detainee and the necessity of current detention, rather than being a statutory provision. Statement 1 is false as the 44th Amendment reduced the maximum period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, not 15 days. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine was not introduced by the 1950 Act but evolved through judicial interpretation (e.g., Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate), and Statement 3 is false because ADM Jabalpur dealt with the suspension of fundamental rights during an emergency, whereas the proximate link test is used to prevent the misuse of preventive detention laws by ensuring the grounds for detention are not stale.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural safeguards under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980:
1. The maximum period for which a person can be detained under the National Security Act is twelve months from the date of detention.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 modified Article 22 to reduce the maximum period of detention without an Advisory Board review from three months to two months.
3. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 serves as the primary legislative foundation for the National Security Act, and it remains in force as a parallel statute for handling threats to public order.
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 13 of the NSA specifies a maximum detention period of twelve months. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 44th Amendment sought to reduce the period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two, this specific provision was never brought into force, meaning the three-month limit remains. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 expired in 1969 and does not serve as the foundation for the NSA, which is a distinct post-independence legislation.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between punitive and preventive detention in Indian jurisprudence:
1. The Supreme Court in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case held that the validity of preventive detention laws is tested against the procedure established by law under Article 21.
2. Under Article 22(4), a preventive detention order exceeding three months requires an opinion from an Advisory Board consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges.
3. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was the first such legislation enacted by the Parliament of India, which remained in force until its expiry in 1969.
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 A.K. Gopalan case established that preventive detention laws only need to satisfy the 'procedure established by law' rather than 'due process of law'. Statement 2 is correct because Article 22(4) mandates that detention beyond three months requires an Advisory Board report confirming sufficient cause, with members qualified to be High Court judges. Statement 3 is correct as the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was India's first post-independence preventive detention law, which was allowed to lapse in 1969.
Consider the following statements regarding Doctrine of 'proximate link' in the context of detention orders:
1. Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, empowers the Central Government or a State Government to detain a person to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1974 decision of Golam Hussain v. State of West Bengal held that a long delay between the prejudicial activity and the detention order breaks the live link of necessity.
3. In the 1982 judgment of Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, the court emphasized that the 'proximate link' serves as a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of administrative power in preventive detention.
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 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, explicitly empowers the Central or State government to issue detention orders to prevent acts prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Golam Hussain v. State of West Bengal (1974) established that a 'live and proximate link' must exist between the past conduct and the detention order, and an unexplained long delay invalidates this necessity. Statement 3 is correct as the judgment in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1982) reinforced that the requirement of a proximate link acts as a vital constitutional safeguard, ensuring that preventive detention is not used arbitrarily by the executive to punish past acts rather than prevent future ones.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police in issuing detention orders:
1. The 1974 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act allows the District Magistrate to bypass the requirement of an Advisory Board review if the detention order is based on evidence of economic offenses exceeding five crore rupees.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 sought to reduce the period for which a person could be detained without the opinion of an Advisory Board from three months to two months, though this specific provision remains unnotified.
3. In the case of A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the National Security Act while emphasizing the necessity of strict procedural compliance by the detaining authority.
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 COFEPOSA Act does not contain any provision allowing the District Magistrate to bypass the mandatory Advisory Board review based on the monetary value of economic offenses. Statement 2 is correct as the 44th Amendment Act (1978) aimed to reduce the initial detention period without an Advisory Board from three months to two months, but this specific provision was never brought into force by the government. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) upheld the National Security Act, 1980, while mandating that authorities must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards provided under Article 22 of the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Maximum duration of detention without Advisory Board approval:
1. The composition of an Advisory Board, as per the constitutional framework, consists of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as judges of a High Court.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a provision to reduce the period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, though this specific clause remains unnotified.
3. Under Article 22(4) of the Constitution, a person detained under any law providing for preventive detention cannot be held for longer than three months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause.
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 22(4)(a) mandates that an Advisory Board must consist of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as High Court judges. Statement 2 is correct because the 44th Amendment Act (1978) sought to reduce the maximum period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, but this provision was never brought into force by the government. Statement 3 is correct as Article 22(4) stipulates that no preventive detention law can authorize detention beyond three months unless an Advisory Board reports that there is sufficient cause for such detention.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of preventive detention laws during a Proclamation of Emergency:
1. Under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) of 1974, the maximum period of detention is determined by the Union Home Ministry through a notification issued under Article 356.
2. Article 22(4) of the Constitution provides that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an advisory board reports sufficient cause.
3. The 44th Amendment Act modified Article 359 to ensure that the rights guaranteed under Article 20 and Article 21 remain enforceable even when a Proclamation of Emergency is in force.
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 Article 22(4) mandates that preventive detention cannot exceed three months without an Advisory Board's approval. Statement 1 is incorrect because the maximum period of detention under COFEPOSA is determined by the Parliament through legislation, not by the Union Home Ministry via Article 356. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the 44th Amendment Act (1978) ensured that rights under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended during an Emergency, it did not modify Article 359 to make them 'enforceable' in the sense of overriding preventive detention laws; rather, it protected these rights from being suspended by a Presidential Order.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of the principle of natural justice in preventive detention proceedings:
1. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, incorporated the principle of natural justice by allowing the detenu to be represented by a legal counsel during the entire duration of the Advisory Board hearing.
2. Under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the detaining authority functions as a quasi-judicial body capable of granting bail during the initial investigation phase.
3. The Supreme Court ruling in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974) established that the right to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental procedural entitlement during the proceedings of an Advisory Board.
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 TADA (1985) specifically barred legal representation before the Advisory Board, prioritizing state security over procedural natural justice. Statement 2 is incorrect as the detaining authority under COFEPOSA is an executive body, not a quasi-judicial one, and lacks the power to grant bail, which remains a judicial function. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974) held that the procedure before an Advisory Board is not a trial, and the detenu does not have a fundamental right to cross-examine witnesses or be represented by a lawyer.
Consider the following statements regarding Role and composition of Advisory Boards under preventive detention laws:
1. The judicial oversight mechanism established by the 1978 amendment allows the High Court to appoint the members of the Advisory Board directly, and this process is overseen by the Chief Justice of the respective state.
2. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act of 1971 empowered the executive to bypass the Advisory Board review process if the detention order was issued during a period of declared financial emergency under Article 360.
3. Article 22(4) of the Indian Constitution provides that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board has reported before the expiration of the said period that there is sufficient cause for such detention.
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 Article 22(4) mandates that preventive detention cannot exceed three months unless an Advisory Board, consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges, reports sufficient cause for extension. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment Act (1978) stipulates that the Advisory Board must be constituted in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the appropriate High Court, not appointed directly by the High Court. Statement 2 is incorrect because MISA (1971) did not contain provisions to bypass Advisory Boards during a financial emergency; in fact, the Constitution does not permit the suspension of fundamental rights or procedural safeguards under Article 360.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence of Parliament vs State Legislatures under the Seventh Schedule:
1. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was the first central legislation enacted by the Parliament under the powers derived from Entry 9 of the Union List.
2. Article 22(7) of the Constitution provides the Parliament with the authority to prescribe the circumstances and the class of cases in which a person may be detained for a period longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board.
3. Under the Seventh Schedule, the power to legislate on preventive detention for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community is shared between the Parliament and the State Legislatures under the Concurrent List.
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 Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was enacted by Parliament under Entry 9 of the Union List to address security threats in post-independence India. Statement 2 is correct because Article 22(7) empowers Parliament to define the criteria for detention beyond three months without Advisory Board oversight, a power explicitly denied to State Legislatures. Statement 3 is correct because 'Preventive detention for reasons connected with the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community' is specifically placed under Entry 3 of the Concurrent List, allowing both Parliament and State Legislatures to legislate on the matter.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of the 44th Constitutional Amendment on preventive detention timelines:
1. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was repealed by the 44th Amendment, which simultaneously established the National Security Act to provide a uniform framework for detention across all states.
2. Under the amended Article 22, the report of the Advisory Board is binding on the executive branch, and the government follows the board's recommendation regarding the immediate release of the detainee.
3. The 44th Amendment modified Article 22(7) to allow Parliament to prescribe the circumstances under which a person can be detained for more than two months without the intervention of an Advisory Board.
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 44th Amendment did not repeal the 1950 Act or establish the National Security Act (NSA), which was enacted by Parliament in 1980. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment reduced the period of detention without an Advisory Board from three months to two months, but it did not make the Board's report binding on the executive. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment actually restricted the power of Parliament under Article 22(7) by reducing the maximum period of detention without an Advisory Board from three months to two months, rather than allowing for an extension.
Consider the following statements regarding Maximum duration of detention without Advisory Board approval:
1. Under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, the initial detention period is fixed at six months, after which the President of India reviews the case for further extension.
2. The National Security Act of 1980 allows the government to detain a person for up to twelve months if the Advisory Board confirms the necessity of detention for reasons connected to national security.
3. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 established the initial maximum period of detention at six months, which was later reduced to three months by the Supreme Court in the A.K. Gopalan case.
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 National Security Act (NSA), 1980, permits detention for up to 12 months if an Advisory Board confirms sufficient cause. Statement 1 is incorrect because COFEPOSA does not involve the President in case reviews; instead, detention beyond three months requires Advisory Board approval. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 initially set the limit at three months, and the A.K. Gopalan case (1950) upheld the constitutionality of the Act rather than reducing the detention period.
Consider the following statements regarding Role and composition of Advisory Boards under preventive detention laws:
1. Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the constitution of an Advisory Board is linked to the administrative notification process, and the board is empowered to review the evidence presented by the investigating agency within a period of forty-five days.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 reduced the maximum period for which a person can be detained without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board from three months to two months.
3. Under the National Security Act of 1980, an Advisory Board consists of a Chairman and two other members, all of whom are serving or retired judges of any High Court.
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, under the UAPA, the Advisory Board must submit its report within eight weeks (not forty-five days) from the date of detention. Statement 2 is correct as the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, reduced the detention period without an Advisory Board's opinion from three months to two months. Statement 3 is correct because Section 9 of the National Security Act, 1980, mandates that the Advisory Board be constituted by the appropriate government, consisting of a Chairman and two other members who are serving or retired High Court judges.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial reviewability of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority:
1. In the landmark A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) judgment, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of procedural due process, which allows courts to examine the reasonableness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950, which remained in force until 1969, included a provision that allowed the detaining authority to withhold the grounds of detention from the Advisory Board if the information was classified as state secret.
3. Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974, provides for the revocation of detention orders by the central government even if the order was issued by a state officer.
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 in A.K. Gopalan (1950), the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation of 'procedure established by law' and held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not justiciable. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, did not contain a provision allowing the withholding of grounds from the Advisory Board; in fact, the Act mandated that grounds be communicated to the detainee to enable them to make a representation. Statement 3 is correct as Section 11 of COFEPOSA explicitly empowers the Central Government to revoke a detention order issued by an officer of a State Government, ensuring central oversight in matters of national economic security.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of preventive detention laws during a Proclamation of Emergency:
1. The Supreme Court in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla case (1976) ruled that the right to move a court for habeas corpus remains suspended during an emergency.
2. Article 359 of the Constitution empowers the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights during a Proclamation of Emergency.
3. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) of 1971 was enacted under the authority of Article 358, which allows for the automatic suspension of Article 21 during external aggression.
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 1976 ADM Jabalpur judgment held that no person has the locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus during an emergency. Statement 2 is correct because Article 359 authorizes the President to suspend the right to move courts for the enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights, excluding those under Articles 20 and 21 post the 44th Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because MISA was a preventive detention law enacted under the legislative competence of Parliament via Article 22(7), not under Article 358, and Article 358 does not provide for the automatic suspension of Article 21.
Consider the following statements regarding Legislative competence of Parliament vs State Legislatures under the Seventh Schedule:
1. The Seventh Schedule classifies preventive detention for reasons of State security under the State List, while the Parliament retains the power to regulate such detention under the residuary powers defined in Article 248.
2. Entry 9 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule empowers the Parliament to enact laws regarding preventive detention for reasons connected with Defence, Foreign Affairs, or the security of India.
3. Entry 3 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule grants both the Parliament and State Legislatures the authority to legislate on preventive detention for reasons related to the security of a State or the maintenance of public order.
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 Entry 9 of the Union List explicitly empowers Parliament to legislate on preventive detention for reasons connected with Defence, Foreign Affairs, or the security of India. Statement 3 is correct because Entry 3 of the Concurrent List empowers both Parliament and State Legislatures to legislate on preventive detention for reasons related to the security of a State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Statement 1 is incorrect because preventive detention is not a residuary power; it is specifically enumerated in the Seventh Schedule, with the Union List covering national security and the Concurrent List covering state security and public order.
Consider the following statements regarding Maximum duration of detention without Advisory Board approval:
1. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act provides for a maximum detention period of 180 days before the case is referred to a judicial tribunal, which replaces the role of the Advisory Board in such matters.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act modified Article 22 to permit detention up to six months without Advisory Board oversight in cases involving threats to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
3. The procedure for the constitution of Advisory Boards under the preventive detention framework is regulated by the appropriate government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
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, under Article 22(4), the Advisory Board consists of persons qualified to be High Court judges, appointed based on recommendations of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. Statement 1 is incorrect because the UAPA (as amended in 2004/2008) allows detention up to 180 days, but the Advisory Board mechanism remains applicable under the Act, not a judicial tribunal. Statement 2 is incorrect because, although the 44th Amendment Act (1978) sought to reduce the period of detention without Advisory Board approval from three months to two months, this provision was never brought into force, leaving the original three-month limit under Article 22(4) unchanged.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between punitive and preventive detention in Indian jurisprudence:
1. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was passed in 1971 to address external threats, and it was subsequently repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978.
2. Article 22(7) empowers the Parliament to prescribe the circumstances under which a person can be detained for more than three months, and this power is shared concurrently with the State Legislatures.
3. The National Security Act of 1980 allows the government to detain a person for up to six months without trial, and the Act falls under the Concurrent List of the Seventh 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 MISA was repealed by the Janata Party government in 1977, not by the 44th Amendment, and it was primarily for internal security, not external threats. Statement 2 is incorrect because the power to prescribe circumstances for detention beyond three months under Article 22(7) is vested exclusively in the Parliament, not the State Legislatures. Statement 3 is incorrect because the National Security Act does not specify a maximum period of detention of six months (the initial order is for three months, extendable), and preventive detention laws fall under the Union List (Entry 9) and Concurrent List (Entry 3), but the specific authority for national security legislation lies with the Parliament.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of Article 21 protections to preventive detention:
1. The Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) held that Article 21 is not a limitation upon the legislative power conferred by Article 22 regarding preventive detention.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 allowed for detention up to six months without trial and was repealed by the Parliament following the landmark judgment in the R.C. Cooper case of 1970.
3. Article 22(4) of the Constitution provides that no law authorizing preventive detention for a period longer than three months shall be valid unless an Advisory Board has reported sufficient cause for such detention.
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 A.K. Gopalan case established a narrow interpretation, ruling that Article 21 did not protect against legislative action under Article 22. Statement 3 is correct because Article 22(4) mandates that any preventive detention exceeding three months requires the approval of an Advisory Board consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 expired in 1969 due to a lack of parliamentary renewal, not because of the R.C. Cooper case, which dealt with bank nationalization rather than preventive detention laws.
Consider the following statements regarding Safeguards against 'successive' detention orders for the same grounds:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced provisions to reduce the period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, though this specific clause remains unnotified.
2. The Supreme Court judgment in the Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (1973) case established that successive detention orders are valid if they are issued by different district authorities for the same set of facts.
3. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) of 1974 contains a clause that prevents the issuance of a fresh detention order if the initial order was quashed by a Magistrate.
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 44th Amendment Act (1978) sought to reduce the period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, but this provision has not yet been brought into force by the government. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (1973) explicitly ruled that successive detention orders based on the same facts are invalid, even if issued by different authorities, as it violates the protection against arbitrary detention. Statement 3 is incorrect because COFEPOSA does not contain a clause preventing fresh orders based on a Magistrate's quashing; in fact, the law generally allows for fresh orders if the initial order was revoked for technical reasons, provided the grounds are not identical or have been properly addressed.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial reviewability of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority:
1. The Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not beyond judicial scrutiny if the grounds are irrelevant or illusory.
2. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the detaining authority is obligated to communicate the grounds of detention to the person concerned as soon as may be, typically interpreted as within five days.
3. In the case of Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of U.P. (1954), the court ruled that if one of the several grounds for detention is found to be non-existent, the entire detention order becomes legally vulnerable.
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 established that while subjective satisfaction is generally immune, it is reviewable if based on irrelevant, vague, or non-existent grounds. Statement 2 is correct because Article 22(5) mandates communication of grounds 'as soon as may be,' and the National Security Act (1980) specifies this period as five days (extendable to ten in exceptional circumstances). Statement 3 is correct because in Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of U.P., the Court held that if one of the grounds is irrelevant or non-existent, the subjective satisfaction is vitiated, rendering the entire detention order illegal as it is impossible to determine if the authority would have detained the person based solely on the remaining valid grounds.
Consider the following statements regarding Procedural requirements for communication of grounds of detention:
1. The Supreme Court in the A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) case observed that the grounds of detention should be communicated to the detainee within five days of the detention order.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a provision to reduce the period for which a person may be detained without the opinion of an Advisory Board from three months to two months.
3. Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, specifies that the detaining authority shall afford the person affected by the order the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
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 A.K. Roy (1982) upheld the five-day limit for communicating detention grounds, extendable to 15 days only in exceptional circumstances. Statement 2 is correct because the 44th Amendment Act (1978) reduced the maximum period of detention without an Advisory Board's opinion from three months to two months, though this specific provision remains unnotified. Statement 3 is correct as Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, mandates that the detaining authority must provide the detainee the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of the principle of natural justice in preventive detention proceedings:
1. Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980, provides that the Advisory Board shall submit its report to the appropriate government within seven weeks from the date of detention.
2. The Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) held that the procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) constitute the minimum requirements of natural justice in preventive detention.
3. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 introduced the concept of judicial review for administrative detentions and established the first national Advisory Board under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
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 10 of the NSA, 1980, mandates the Advisory Board to submit its report within seven weeks from the date of detention. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) affirmed that the procedural rights under Article 22(5), such as the right to make a representation, are essential facets of natural justice. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was criticized for limiting judicial review, and it did not establish a national Advisory Board under the Ministry of Home Affairs; rather, it allowed for the constitution of boards at the state level.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of 'public order' versus 'law and order' in detention cases:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1966 Ram Manohar Lohia case established that the distinction between law and order and public order is based on the intensity of the impact, with public order representing a threat to the sovereignty of the state.
2. Article 22(4) of the Constitution allows the detention of a person for more than three months if an Advisory Board, consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges, reports that there is sufficient cause for detention beyond the 1978 amendment period.
3. The National Security Act of 1980 defines public order as a state of tranquility that is disturbed by any act of violence, thereby allowing the executive to bypass the judicial review process for detentions exceeding six months.
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 Ram Manohar Lohia case (1966) distinguished 'public order' from 'law and order' based on the degree of reach and impact on the community, not sovereignty. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment (1978) reduced the maximum period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, and the Board must be chaired by a sitting or retired High Court judge, not just those qualified. Statement 3 is incorrect because the National Security Act does not define 'public order' to bypass judicial review; judicial review remains a constitutional safeguard under Article 22, and the Act does not grant the executive immunity from such oversight.
Consider the following statements regarding Right of the detenu to make a representation against the detention order:
1. The Advisory Board, as constituted under the preventive detention framework, consists of a Chairman and two other members who are or have been judges of a High Court.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced provisions to reduce the period for which a person can be held in preventive detention without Advisory Board review.
3. In the case of Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974), the judiciary observed that preventive detention is a necessary evil to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of 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 Article 22(4) mandates the Advisory Board consist of a Chairman and two members who are or have been High Court judges. Statement 2 is correct because the 44th Amendment Act (1978) reduced the period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, although this specific provision was never brought into force. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974) upheld the constitutionality of preventive detention laws, describing them as a 'necessary evil' to protect state security and public order.
Consider the following statements regarding Grounds for revocation of detention orders by the appropriate government:
1. Under Section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980, the appropriate government holds the authority to revoke a detention order at any time before the expiry of the detention period.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 established the initial framework for administrative detention and granted the Supreme Court the power to initiate the revocation of orders based on procedural lapses.
3. Article 22(7) of the Constitution empowers Parliament to prescribe the maximum period for which a person may be detained, a provision utilized during the enactment of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
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 14 of the National Security Act, 1980, explicitly empowers the appropriate government to revoke or modify a detention order at any time before its expiry. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 did not grant the Supreme Court the power to initiate revocation; instead, the courts primarily exercise judicial review to examine the legality of detention, not the administrative power to revoke orders. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while Article 22(7) does empower Parliament to prescribe the maximum period of detention, the COFEPOSA Act of 1974 was enacted under the general legislative competence regarding preventive detention and does not rely on a specific maximum period prescribed under the authority of Article 22(7).
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional status of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as a preventive measure:
1. Preventive detention laws are listed under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, which allows the state legislatures to enact laws that override the provisions of the UAPA within their respective jurisdictions.
2. The 2004 amendment to the UAPA shifted the focus from merely banning unlawful associations to including provisions for dealing with terrorist activities.
3. Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, a court is restricted from releasing an accused on bail if the case diary or report reveals reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true.
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 preventive detention is in the Concurrent List (Entry 3), the UAPA is a central legislation enacted under the Union List (Entry 1, 2, and 9) regarding defense and national security, and state laws cannot override it. Statement 2 is correct as the 2004 amendment significantly expanded the Act's scope to include 'terrorist acts' following the repeal of POTA. Statement 3 is correct because Section 43D(5) creates a stringent 'prima facie' test that effectively reverses the burden of proof, making the grant of bail exceptionally difficult for the accused.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional validity of Article 22(3) to 22(7):
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 sought to reduce the period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months, though this specific provision was not brought into force.
2. Under Article 22(5), the detaining authority is obligated to communicate to the detained person the grounds on which the order has been made as soon as may be, subject to claims of public interest privilege.
3. Article 22(4) of the Constitution provides that no law authorizing preventive detention for a period longer than three months shall remain valid unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause for such detention.
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 44th Amendment Act (1978) proposed reducing the detention period without Advisory Board review from three months to two, but this provision was never notified by the government. Statement 2 is correct because Article 22(5) mandates the communication of grounds to the detainee at the earliest, while simultaneously allowing the authority to withhold facts considered against the public interest. Statement 3 is correct as Article 22(4) mandates that any preventive detention exceeding three months requires approval from an Advisory Board consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of 'public order' versus 'law and order' in detention cases:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1990s observed that the concept of public order under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act is identical to the definition used in the preventive detention provisions of the Seventh Schedule.
2. Under the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978, the period for which a person can be detained without the opinion of an Advisory Board was reduced from three months to thirty days to align with international human rights standards.
3. The 1982 Antony v. State of Kerala ruling clarified that the distinction between law and order and public order is irrelevant in cases involving habitual offenders under the Goondas Act of 1986.
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 consistently distinguishes 'public order' (affecting the community at large) from 'law and order' (affecting individuals), and TADA was a special penal statute, not a preventive detention provision under the Seventh Schedule. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 44th Amendment Act (1978) intended to reduce the detention period without an Advisory Board from three months to two months, this specific provision was never brought into force by the government. Statement 3 is incorrect because the judiciary, notably in cases like 'Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar', has consistently held that the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' is fundamental and mandatory for justifying preventive detention, regardless of the offender's status.
Consider the following statements regarding Application of the principle of natural justice in preventive detention proceedings:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 reduced the period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months to align with international human rights standards.
2. In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the court affirmed that a detenu is entitled to have an interview with a legal practitioner as a facet of the right to life.
3. Article 22(4) of the Constitution specifies that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board has reported sufficient cause.
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 44th Amendment Act of 1978 sought to reduce the period from three months to two months, but this specific provision was never brought into force, meaning the original three-month limit remains. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) held that the right to consult a legal practitioner is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Statement 3 is correct because Article 22(4) mandates that preventive detention cannot exceed three months unless an Advisory Board, consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges, reports that there is sufficient cause for extended detention.
Consider the following statements regarding Role and composition of Advisory Boards under preventive detention laws:
1. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1985 introduced a provision for the periodic review of detention orders, and it permitted the inclusion of district-level judicial officers in the composition of the Advisory Boards.
2. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of 1974 allows the state to extend detention beyond six months, provided the Advisory Board includes at least one member with a background in customs administration.
3. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 established the initial framework for administrative detention, and it permitted the central government to appoint retired Supreme Court justices as the presiding officers of the review panels.
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 TADA (1985) did not allow district-level judicial officers in Advisory Boards; these boards must be constituted by persons qualified to be High Court judges. Statement 2 is incorrect because COFEPOSA (1974) mandates that Advisory Boards consist of three persons qualified to be High Court judges, and it does not permit detention beyond the statutory limit based on customs administration expertise. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 required Advisory Boards to consist of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as High Court judges, not specifically retired Supreme Court justices.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional status of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as a preventive measure:
1. The 2019 amendment to the UAPA empowered the Central Government to designate an individual as a terrorist if they are found to be involved in terrorism as defined under the Fourth Schedule.
2. Article 22 of the Indian Constitution provides the framework for preventive detention, allowing the state to detain individuals for up to three months without an advisory board review.
3. The Supreme Court in the 2019 NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali judgment clarified the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding the evidentiary value of materials submitted by the prosecution during bail hearings.
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 because the 2019 UAPA amendment inserted Section 35, allowing the government to designate individuals as terrorists based on specific criteria. Statement 2 is correct as Article 22(4) permits detention for up to three months without an Advisory Board's opinion if the detention is under a law enacted by Parliament. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in the Watali case (2019) ruled that courts must accept the prosecution's case as true at the bail stage, significantly limiting the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding evidence.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of Article 21 protections to preventive detention:
1. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) of 1971 provided for the detention of individuals to prevent threats to the security of India and was formally struck down by the Supreme Court in the ADM Jabalpur case of 1976.
2. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was amended in 2004 to incorporate specific procedural safeguards for preventive detention, mirroring the protections found in the original 1950 Constitution before the 44th Amendment.
3. Article 22(7) of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to prescribe the circumstances under which a person may be detained for longer than three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board, a power exercised during the enactment of the TADA Act in 1985.
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 MISA was repealed in 1977, not struck down by the ADM Jabalpur case, which infamously upheld the suspension of Article 21 during the Emergency. Statement 2 is incorrect as the UAPA, originally enacted in 1967, focuses on anti-terror activities and does not mirror the procedural safeguards of Article 22, nor were such specific safeguards incorporated in 2004. Statement 3 is incorrect because while Article 22(7) grants Parliament this power, the TADA Act of 1985 did not utilize this specific constitutional provision to bypass the Advisory Board requirement in the manner described.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of preventive detention laws during a Proclamation of Emergency:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a safeguard that preventive detention for a period longer than two months requires an advisory board report.
2. During the operation of a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352, the legislative competence of Parliament to enact preventive detention laws is derived from the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.
3. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was repealed by the 42nd Amendment Act, which simultaneously incorporated the National Security Act into the Ninth Schedule 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 incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the 44th Amendment reduced the maximum period of preventive detention without an advisory board report from three months to two months. Statement 2 is incorrect because preventive detention laws fall under the Concurrent List (Entry 3) by default, but during an Emergency, the legislative competence is derived from the constitutional scheme rather than a change in the List itself. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 expired in 1969, and the National Security Act was enacted in 1980, neither of which were tied to the 42nd Amendment or the Ninth Schedule in the manner described.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of legal representation before Advisory Boards:
1. Article 22(4) of the Constitution outlines the composition of Advisory Boards, and the Supreme Court in the A.K. Roy case (1982) affirmed the constitutional entitlement to legal representation during detention reviews.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 established the initial framework for Advisory Boards, and the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced the right to legal counsel before these bodies.
3. The National Security Act of 1980 governs the procedural conduct of Advisory Boards, and the 1986 amendment to this Act incorporated provisions for the presence of defense attorneys during board 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 the law consistently denies the right to legal representation before Advisory Boards. Article 22(4) mandates the establishment of Advisory Boards but does not grant a constitutional right to legal counsel; in fact, the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy (1982) explicitly upheld the exclusion of legal practitioners in such proceedings. Furthermore, neither the 44th Amendment nor the 1986 amendment to the National Security Act introduced a right to defense attorneys, as the statutory framework continues to prohibit legal representation to maintain the administrative nature of these reviews.
Consider the following statements regarding Safeguards against 'successive' detention orders for the same grounds:
1. The Supreme Court in the A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) case clarified that fresh facts must exist to justify a second detention order if the initial order has expired or been revoked.
2. The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 included a provision for automatic judicial review of successive detention orders by the Supreme Court within forty-eight hours of the second arrest.
3. Section 14 of the National Security Act, 1980, provides that the revocation of a detention order does not bar the making of a fresh detention order against the same person based on newer facts.
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 Supreme Court in A.K. Roy (1982) affirmed that a fresh detention order cannot be issued on the same grounds as a revoked or expired one unless new, relevant facts have emerged. Statement 3 is correct because Section 14 of the NSA, 1980, explicitly allows for a new detention order if fresh facts arise, ensuring the state's power is not exhausted by a single revocation. Statement 2 is incorrect because no such provision for automatic judicial review within forty-eight hours exists under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 or current Indian law; judicial oversight is primarily exercised through Habeas Corpus petitions or Advisory Boards.
Consider the following statements regarding Safeguards against 'successive' detention orders for the same grounds:
1. Under Article 22(4) of the Constitution, an Advisory Board consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges reviews the necessity of detention beyond a period of three months.
2. Article 22(7) of the Constitution empowers Parliament to prescribe the circumstances under which a person can be detained for more than three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board, a power exercised during the 1975 Emergency.
3. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) of 1971 allowed the government to issue multiple detention orders for the same grounds provided the total period of incarceration did not exceed twelve months.
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 Article 22(4) mandates that no preventive detention law can authorize detention beyond three months unless an Advisory Board, composed of persons qualified to be High Court judges, reports sufficient cause. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while Article 22(7) does empower Parliament to prescribe circumstances for detention beyond three months without an Advisory Board, this specific provision was not the basis for the 1975 Emergency detentions, which were governed by the MISA ordinance. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in 'A.K. Roy v. Union of India' and other precedents established that successive detention orders cannot be issued on the same grounds if the initial order was revoked or expired, as it would violate the constitutional safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Consider the following statements regarding Grounds for revocation of detention orders by the appropriate government:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a provision to reduce the maximum period of detention without the opinion of an Advisory Board from three months to two months.
2. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, included a specific clause that allowed the President of India to directly revoke any detention order issued by a state government if the detention exceeded a duration of six months.
3. The 1978 amendment to the Constitution removed the requirement for an Advisory Board to review detention cases, thereby shifting the responsibility of revocation to the state-level Home Secretary.
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 44th Amendment Act (1978) reduced the maximum period of detention without Advisory Board review from three months to two months. Statement 2 is incorrect as MISA did not grant the President such power, and the Constitution empowers both the Central and State governments to revoke detention orders at any time. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 44th Amendment actually strengthened the role of the Advisory Board, requiring it to be constituted in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the appropriate High Court, rather than removing it.