Question map
Not attempted Correct Incorrect ★ Bookmarked
Loading…
Q77 (IAS/2023) Polity & Governance › Fundamental Rights, DPSP & Fundamental Duties › Preventive detention Official Key

Consider the following statements : 1. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances. 2. The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention. 3. According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence. How many of the above statements are correct?

Result
Your answer: —  ·  Correct: B
Explanation

The correct answer is Option 2 (Only two). This is because statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect.

  • Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 355 of the Constitution, it is the explicit duty of the Union (Central Government) to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance.
  • Statement 2 is correct: Article 22(3) of the Constitution specifies that the fundamental right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner (Article 22(1)) does not apply to a person arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.
  • Statement 3 is incorrect: Unlike the general rule in the Indian Evidence Act, Section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, specifically allowed confessions made before a police officer (not below the rank of SP) to be admissible as evidence, provided certain safeguards were met.

Since only statements 1 and 2 are accurate, the correct choice is "Only two".

How others answered
Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.
Community Performance
Out of everyone who attempted this question.
53%
got it right
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full view
Don’t just practise – reverse-engineer the question. This panel shows where this PYQ came from (books / web), how the examiner broke it into hidden statements, and which nearby micro-concepts you were supposed to learn from it. Treat it like an autopsy of the question: what might have triggered it, which exact lines in the book matter, and what linked ideas you should carry forward to future questions.
Q. Consider the following statements : 1. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from …
At a glance
Origin: Books + Current Affairs Fairness: Low / Borderline fairness Books / CA: 3.3/10 · 6.7/10

A classic mix of static Constitutional text (Art 355, Art 22) and 'Legal GK' regarding repealed acts (POTA). While Statements 1 and 2 are directly from Laxmikanth, Statement 3 tests the specific 'draconian' feature that made POTA controversial. Success required knowing the exceptions to Fundamental Rights, not just the rights themselves.

How this question is built

This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.

Statement 1
Does Article 355 of the Constitution of India impose a duty on the Union (Central) Government to protect States from internal disturbance?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 17: Emergency Provisions > Grounds of Imposition > p. 178
Presence: 5/5
“Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance, and to ensure that the government of every state is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It is this duty in the performance of which the Centre takes over the government of the state under Article 356 in case of failure of constitutional machinery in the state. This is popularly known as 'President's Rule'. The President's Rule can be proclaimed under Article 356 itself and another in Article 365: • 1. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation, if she is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution .”
Why this source?
  • Directly states Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance.
  • Explicitly connects this duty to ensuring state governments are carried on according to the Constitution (basis for central action).
Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 15: Centre State Relations > 10. Other Provisions > p. 151
Presence: 5/5
“The Constitution contains the following other provisions which enable the Centre to exercise control over the state administration: (i) Article 355 imposes two duties on the Centre: (a) to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance; and (b) to ensure that the government of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. (ii) The governor of a state is appointed by the President. He/she holds office during the pleasure of the President. In addition to the Constitutional head of the state, the governor acts as an agent of the Centre in the state.”
Why this source?
  • Specifies the two duties under Article 355, one being protection against external aggression and internal disturbance.
  • Frames Article 355 as a constitutional provision empowering Centre's supervisory/control role over state administration.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 15: Centre-State Relations > Punchhi Commission > p. 163
Presence: 5/5
“of the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai case (1994). This would remove possible misgivings in this regard on the part of states and help in smoothening Centre-state relations. • 19. Given the strict parameters now set for invoking the emergency provisions under Articles 352 and 356 to be used only as a measure of "last resort, and the duty of the Union to protect states under Article 355, it is necessary to provide a Constitutional or legal framework to deal with situations which require Central intervention but do not warrant invoking the extreme steps under Articles 352 and 356 Ministers, Chaired by one of the Chief Minister by rotation can be similarly thought about particularly to co-ordinate policies of sectors like energy, food, education, environment and health. • 23.”
Why this source?
  • Refers to the duty of the Union to protect states under Article 355 when discussing limits and frameworks for central intervention.
  • Places Article 355 in the practical context of when the Centre may need to intervene short of extreme emergency measures.
Statement 2
Under the Constitution of India (Article 22), is a person detained under preventive detention entitled to be provided legal counsel by the State?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs Fairness: CA heavy Web-answerable

Web source
Presence: 4/5
"The court or advisory committee should receive the representation, if any, of the detained person and it should be furnished with such information by the Government or other competent authorities as it requests. The detained person should be entitled to be heard as of right and he should be entitled to be represented by a legal"
Why this source?
  • Directly addresses rights of detained persons in preventive-detention contexts, including access to representation.
  • States that the detained person 'should be entitled' to be heard and to be represented by a legal (counsel), supporting entitlement to legal representation.
Web source
Presence: 3/5
"period of detention— not to exceed 3 months .............................................................. 22(4). may exceed 3 months in certain circumstances .................... 22(4)(a) & (b). maximum—may be prescribed by Parliament ...................... 22(7)(a) & (b). person detained under— facts may not be communicated to — if against public interest ................................................................................... 22(6). grounds of detention to be communicated to ....................... 22(5)."
Why this source?
  • Explicitly references Article 22 and its preventive-detention provisions, situating the question within Article 22's framework.
  • Shows the constitutional provisions (e.g., communication of grounds) that relate to rights and procedures for persons detained under preventive detention.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > When a person has been arrested under a law of preventive detention- > p. 135
Strength: 5/5
“When a person has been arrested under a law of preventive detention: (i) The Government is entitled to detain such person in custody only for three months. If it seeks to detain the arrested person [or more than 3 months, it must obtain a report from 'an Advisory Board' who will examine the papers submitted by the Government and by the accused as to whether the detention is justified. (ii) The person so detained shall, as soon as may be, be informed of the grounds of his detention excepting facts which the detaining authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.”
Why relevant

States that a person detained under preventive detention must be informed of the grounds of his detention as soon as may be, indicating specific procedural safeguards apply to preventive detention.

How to extend

A student could check whether informing grounds logically requires or is routinely accompanied by access to legal advice/representation under legal procedure or compare Article 22 text to see if counsel is listed among such safeguards.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 134
Strength: 5/5
“The magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate. The above safeguards are not, however, available to- tal ,111 enemy aliens; (b) a person arrested or detained under a law providing for preventive detention. Right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution is available only against illegal detention by the police and. It is not available against a person ordered pursuant to a legal order: Article 221 T I,,: Constitution itself authorises the Legislatlll' to Provontlvo mak laws pl'Oviding 1'01'- Detention, 'for reasons connected with the security of State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, or for reasons connected with Defence, Foreign Affairs or the security of India [eventh Schedule List 1.”
Why relevant

Explicitly says the safeguards in Article 22(2) are not available to a person detained under preventive detention, highlighting that some protections applicable to ordinary arrest are excluded for preventive detention.

How to extend

A student could list which procedural protections Article 22(1)-(2) contain (e.g., right to be produced before magistrate, to be informed of grounds) and then test whether 'right to State-provided counsel' is among those excluded safeguards by reading Article 22 or relevant case law.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > El l Protection Against Arrest and Detention > p. 92
Strength: 4/5
“These safeguards are not available to an enemy alien or a person arrested or detained under a preventive detention law. The Supreme Court also ruled that the arrest and detention in the first part of Article 22 do not cover arrest under the orders of a court, civil arrest, arrest on income tax arrear, and deportation of an alien. They apply only to an act of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or some activity prejudicial to public interest. • (b) The second part of Article 22 grants protection to persons who are arrested or detained under a preventive detention law.”
Why relevant

Repeatedly notes that safeguards against arrest/detention are not available to persons under preventive detention while the second part of Article 22 deals specifically with preventive detention protections, implying a distinct, narrower set of rights.

How to extend

A student could compare the 'first part' protections (e.g., prompt production before magistrate) with the 'second part' to see if legal representation by the State is provided under either part.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8 > p. 154
Strength: 4/5
“The Supreme Court struck down the above provision on the ground that it contravened Article 32 by way of preventing the Supreme Court from effectively exercising its powers under Article 32. The following observations of Mahajan J are illuminating: This section is in the nature of an iron curtain around the acts of the authority making the order of preventive detention. The Constitution has guaranteed to the detained person the right to be told the grounds of detention. Now it is quite clear that if an authority passes an order of preventive detention for reasons not connected with any of the six subjects mentioned in the 7th Schedule, this court can always declare the detention illegal and release the detenu,”
Why relevant

Mentions the Supreme Court struck down a provision that prevented Article 32 review, stressing that judicial scrutiny and the right to be told grounds are constitutional safeguards relevant to preventive detention.

How to extend

A student might infer that because courts insist on effective judicial review and disclosure of grounds, they may also consider whether access to counsel is necessary for meaningful review and then check judicial decisions on counsel in preventive detention cases.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA > p. 128
Strength: 3/5
“In short, no man can be subjected to any physical coercion that does not admit of legal justification. Again, as under the English Constitution, personal freedom is secured by the Indian Constitution by the judicial writ of habeas corpus (see under "Habeas Corpus", post) [Articles 32 and 226] by means of which an arrested person may have himself brought before the court and have the ground of his imprisonment examined, and regain his freedom if the court finds that there is no legal justification for his imprisonment”
Why relevant

Describes habeas corpus (Articles 32 and 226) as a remedy to test legality of detention, signalling that detained persons can seek court intervention to challenge detention.

How to extend

A student could investigate whether the ability to file habeas corpus petitions presumes access to legal assistance, or whether courts have required State to provide counsel in preventive detention habeas corpus proceedings.

Statement 3
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, are confessions made by an accused to police officers admissible as evidence in court?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs Fairness: CA heavy Web-answerable

Web source
Presence: 5/5
"Like TADA, POTA makes confessions to police officers admissible as substantive evidence, reversing the normal rule that confessions to police officers are flatly inadmissible."
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states POTA's rule on confessions to police officers.
  • Directly answers that POTA makes such confessions admissible as substantive evidence, reversing the usual rule.
Web source
Presence: 3/5
"5. Section 32 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 200279 “Certain confessions made to police"
Why this source?
  • Identifies the specific provision in POTA (Section 32) dealing with confessions made to police.
  • Supports that the Act contains a clause addressing admissibility of police confessions.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8] Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Dimes 127 > p. 127
Strength: 5/5
“C. The immunity from self-incrimination is conferred by clause (3) of Article 20 which says: 'Accused's Immunity from being compelled to give evidence against himself shall not be denied to any person accused of any offence. No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.' The scope of this immunity has, prima facie, been widened by our Supreme Court by interpreting the word "witness" to comprise both oral and documentary evidence, so that no person can be compelled to furnish any kind of evidence which is reasonably likely to support a prosecution against him.”
Why relevant

Summarises Article 20(3)'s broad immunity from being compelled to give evidence against oneself, including both oral and documentary evidence.

How to extend

A student can combine this constitutional protection with the text of POTA to ask whether POTA contains any provision that overrides or carves out an exception to Article 20(3).

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8 > p. 154
Strength: 4/5
“The section was as follows: (1) No Court shall, except for the purpose of a prosecution for an offence punishable under sub-section (2), allow any statement to be made or any evidence to be given before it or the substance of any communication made under section 7 of the grounds on which a detention order has been made against any person or of any representation made by him against such order; and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, no Court shall be entitled to require any public officer to produce before (2) It shall be an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both for any person to disclose or publish without the previous authorisation of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, any contents or matter purporting to be contents of any such communication or representation as is referred to in sub-section (1) . . .”
Why relevant

Describes a statutory rule barring courts from allowing certain statements or evidence in specified detention-related proceedings and criminalises unauthorized disclosure of such communications.

How to extend

Use this pattern (statutory limits on admissibility in special detention contexts) to check whether POTA likewise contains express rules about admissibility of statements to police.

Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > Rights of accused > p. 36
Strength: 4/5
“Our Constitution ensures that persons accused of various offences would also get sufficient protection. We often tend to believe that anyone who is charged with some offence is guilty. However, no one is guilty unless the court has found that person guilty of an offence. It is also necessary that a person accused of any crime should get adequate opportunity to defend herself or himself. To ensure a fair trial in courts, the Constitution has provided three rights: • ± no person would be punished for the same offence more than once,• ± no law shall declare any action as illegal from a backdate, and• ± no person shall be asked to give evidence against himself or herself.”
Why relevant

States the constitutional right that no person shall be asked to give evidence against himself or herself as part of rights of the accused.

How to extend

Apply this general right to interrogations under POTA: a student should examine whether POTA procedures and evidence rules respect or modify this right.

Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > The Rowlatt Act > p. 320
Strength: 4/5
“The act allowed political activists to be tried without juries or even imprisoned without trial. It allowed arrest of Indians without warrant on the mere suspicion of 'treason'. Such suspects could be tried in secrecy without recourse to legal help. A special cell consisting of three high court judges was to try such suspects and there was no court of appeal above that panel. This panel could even accept evidence not acceptable under the Indian Evidences Act. The law of habeas corpus, the basis of civil liberty, was sought to be suspended. The object of the government was to replace the repressive”
Why relevant

Gives an example (Rowlatt Act special tribunal) of a provision allowing a special forum to accept evidence not acceptable under the Indian Evidence Act.

How to extend

Use this precedent to investigate whether POTA established special courts or provisions that make police confessions admissible despite ordinary evidence-law rules.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > El l Protection Against Arrest and Detention > p. 93
Strength: 3/5
“(h) Prevention ofThrrorism Act (POTA), 2002. Repealed in 2004. (i) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, as amended in 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2019. It is unfortunate to know that no democratic country in the world has made preventive detention as an integral part of the Constitution as has been done in India. It is unknown in USA. It was resorted to in Britain only during first and second world war time. In India, preventive detention existed even during the British rule. For example, the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation of 1818 and the Defence of India Act of 1939 provided for preventive detention.”
Why relevant

Identifies POTA, 2002 specifically as a special law (noting its existence and later repeal), implying it may have special procedural or evidentiary provisions distinct from general law.

How to extend

Prompt checking the POTA text or amendments to see if it contained express evidentiary provisions about confessions to police, given it was a special anti-terror statute.

Pattern takeaway: UPSC is testing the 'clash' points: Constitution vs. Special Laws. They expect you to know not just the current law (UAPA) but the historical evolution of legal stringency (TADA/POTA) to understand the trajectory of Civil Liberties in India.
How you should have studied
  1. [THE VERDICT]: Moderate/Tricky. S1 and S2 are standard static (Laxmikanth Ch: Fundamental Rights & Emergency). S3 is the trap—it requires knowing the specific evidence rule of a repealed law (POTA).
  2. [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Exceptions' to Fundamental Rights. Specifically, how Article 22 interacts with Preventive Detention laws and how Special Acts (TADA/POTA) override general legal principles (Evidence Act).
  3. [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: (1) Art 22(3): Denies protection of Art 22(1)&(2) to Enemy Aliens & PD detainees. (2) Confessions: Inadmissible under Indian Evidence Act (Sec 25) vs. Admissible under TADA/POTA/MCOCA. (3) Art 355: 'Internal Disturbance' remains here even though removed from Art 352. (4) Advisory Board: Max detention 3 months (44th Amd reduced to 2 months but NOT notified).
  4. [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When studying Fundamental Rights, obsess over the 'Exceptions' and 'Derogations'. Don't just memorize the list of PD laws (NASA, TADA, POTA); understand the *legal controversy* associated with them (e.g., admissibility of police confessions, bail provisions).
Concept hooks from this question
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Article 355 — Union's duty to protect states
💡 The insight

Article 355 assigns the Union a duty to protect every state from external aggression and internal disturbance.

High-yield: this concept is foundational for questions on Centre–State relations and constitutional duties of the Union. It connects directly to emergency powers and federal balance, and is often used to explain permissible central intervention.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 17: Emergency Provisions > Grounds of Imposition > p. 178
  • Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 15: Centre State Relations > 10. Other Provisions > p. 151
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 15: Centre-State Relations > Punchhi Commission > p. 163
🔗 Anchor: "Does Article 355 of the Constitution of India impose a duty on the Union (Centra..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Link between Article 355 and Article 356 (President's Rule)
💡 The insight

Failure or performance of the Union's duty under Article 355 is tied to the invocation of Article 356 and central takeover of state government.

Important for understanding when President's Rule may be proclaimed and the constitutional chain from supervisory duty to extreme remedies; useful for essay, prelims and mains questions on emergency provisions and judicial review.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 17: Emergency Provisions > Grounds of Imposition > p. 178
  • Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 15: Centre State Relations > 10. Other Provisions > p. 151
🔗 Anchor: "Does Article 355 of the Constitution of India impose a duty on the Union (Centra..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Internal disturbance vs armed rebellion
💡 The insight

The constitutional terminology distinguishes 'internal disturbance' from 'armed rebellion', which affects the scope of central emergency powers.

Helps determine applicable emergency provisions and legal thresholds for central action; useful for interpreting Articles 352/355/356 and related case-law on what justifies intervention.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 28: EMERGENCY PROVISIONS > EMERGENCY PROVISIONS > p. 411
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 17: Emergency Provisions > Grounds of Imposition > p. 178
🔗 Anchor: "Does Article 355 of the Constitution of India impose a duty on the Union (Centra..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Exceptions to Article 22 procedural safeguards
💡 The insight

Article 22 excludes persons detained under preventive detention and enemy aliens from certain procedural protections afforded to ordinary arrests.

High-yield for constitutional law questions on fundamental rights vs. state security: explains how and when procedural safeguards can be limited. Useful for questions on limits to civil liberties, emergency powers, and comparison of rights across categories of detainees.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 134
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > El l Protection Against Arrest and Detention > p. 92
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India (Article 22), is a person detained under prevent..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Preventive detention — duration and Advisory Board review
💡 The insight

Preventive detention is subject to a three-month limit unless an Advisory Board reviews and approves continued detention.

Important for questions on procedural safeguards in preventive detention and institutional checks on executive detention power; connects to topics on administrative law, review mechanisms, and the role of quasi-judicial bodies.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > When a person has been arrested under a law of preventive detention- > p. 135
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8 > p. 154
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India (Article 22), is a person detained under prevent..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Preventive vs punitive detention — purpose and remedies
💡 The insight

Preventive detention aims to avert future offences without trial, unlike punitive detention which follows conviction; preventive detainees have distinct and more limited remedies.

Core concept for UPSC when evaluating state action and individual liberty; links to habeas corpus, emergency provisions, and case-based questions about detention law and civil liberties.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > El l Protection Against Arrest and Detention > p. 91
  • Politics in India since Independence, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 6: The Crisis of Democratic Order > Consequences > p. 101
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India (Article 22), is a person detained under prevent..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S3
👉 Right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3))
💡 The insight

Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to give evidence against himself, covering both oral and documentary forms.

High-yield: directly limits admissibility of compelled confessions and interrogation-derived material; links constitutional protections to procedural and evidence law questions. Mastering this helps answer questions on safeguards during arrest, interrogation, and use of statements in trial.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8] Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Dimes 127 > p. 127
  • Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > Rights of accused > p. 36
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, are confessions made by an accused ..."
🌑 The Hidden Trap

The 'Ghost' Amendment: The 44th Amendment (1978) technically reduced the maximum preventive detention period without Advisory Board approval from 3 months to 2 months. However, this specific section was never notified by the Executive, so the practical limit remains 3 months. This is a potential 'True/False' trap.

⚡ Elimination Cheat Code

The 'Draconian Law' Logic: Special anti-terror laws (TADA, POTA) are famous precisely because they are harsh and bypass normal safeguards. The normal rule is 'confessions to police are invalid'. If S3 says POTA followed the normal rule, it wouldn't be a 'special' or 'draconian' act. Therefore, POTA likely *allowed* the confession. S3 is False.

🔗 Mains Connection

Mains GS-3 (Internal Security) & GS-2 (Polity): The shift from TADA/POTA to UAPA represents the 'Federal' tension in policing terror. POTA was a Central Act; Police is a State subject. The admissibility of confessions in POTA was a major point of conflict regarding federal principles and human rights.

✓ Thank you! We'll review this.

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

IAS · 2020 · Q83 Relevance score: 3.35

Consider the following statements : 1. The Constitution of India defines its 'basic structure' in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy. 2. The Constitution of India provides for 'judicial review' to safeguard the citizens' liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

IAS · 2019 · Q81 Relevance score: 3.31

With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements : 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid. 2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

IAS · 2022 · Q87 Relevance score: 2.69

Consider the following statements: 1. Attorney General of India and Solicitor General of India are the only officers of the Government who are allowed to participate in the meetings of the Parliament of India. 2. According to the Constitution of India, the Attorney General of India submits his resignation when the Government which appointed him resigns. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

CDS-I · 2024 · Q81 Relevance score: 2.58

Consider the following statements: 1. Under Part III of the Constitution of India, individuals can enforce rights guaranteed by this Part when they are violated by the action of a government authority. 2. Under Part III of the Constitution of India, individuals can enforce rights guaranteed by this Part when they are violated by not only the action of a government authority, but also by its inaction.

IAS · 2019 · Q45 Relevance score: 2.34

Consider the following statements : 1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review. 2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?