Question map
With reference to India, consider the following pairs : Action The Act under which it is covered 1. Unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms : The Official Secrets Act, 1923 2. Knowingly misleading or otherwise interfering with a police officer or military officer when engaged in their duties : The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 3. Celebratory gunfire which can endanger the personal safety of others : The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2 (Only two) because pairs 1 and 3 are correctly matched, while pair 2 is incorrectly matched.
- Pair 1 is correctly matched: Under Section 6 of The Official Secrets Act, 1923, the unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms, or any dress having the appearance of such uniforms for deceptive purposes, is a prohibited offense.
- Pair 2 is incorrectly matched: Knowingly misleading or interfering with police or military officers in their duties is actually covered under Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, not the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Evidence Act primarily deals with the admissibility of facts and proof in legal proceedings.
- Pair 3 is correctly matched: The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 introduced Section 25(9), which specifically criminalizes celebratory gunfire in public gatherings or religious places that endangers human life or personal safety.
Since only pairs 1 and 3 are accurate, the answer is "Only two".
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis question is a 'Legal Literacy' test disguised as Polity. It rewards common sense (knowing what the Evidence Act actually does) and awareness of major recent amendments (Arms Act 2019). The strategy is to filter options by checking if the Act's 'Title' logically governs the 'Action' described (e.g., Evidence laws don't police street behavior).
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Does the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (India) criminalize unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms?
- Statement 2: Does the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (India) criminalize knowingly misleading or otherwise interfering with a police or military officer when they are engaged in their duties?
- Statement 3: Does the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 (India) criminalize celebratory gunfire that can endanger the personal safety of others?
This snippet explicitly pairs the Official Secrets Act, 1923 with a numbered list that begins with 'Unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms', suggesting a possible mapping of specific offences to particular Acts.
A student could use this pattern to check the original mapping/table or statute indexes to see whether that offence is actually listed under the Official Secrets Act or under a different law (e.g., IPC or Defence Acts).
Notes that the Official Secrets Act was amended/used alongside wartime Defence of India Rules and press censorship, implying the Act is used for national-security-related restrictions rather than general policing matters.
A student could infer that offences tied to impersonation of security personnel might instead fall under Defence legislation or other security statutes and should check those Acts and IPC provisions for impersonation offences.
References the Official Secrets Act (1904) as a reactionary/security measure used to suppress political activity, highlighting the Act's focus on secrecy and security rather than uniform impersonation per se.
Use this to hypothesize that the Official Secrets Act targets disclosure/handling of sensitive information; therefore, a student should contrast its text with laws that typically address impersonation (e.g., specific penal provisions).
Describes the Defence of India Act (1915) as an emergency security law allowing broad powers and special tribunals, indicating that wartime/security impersonation offences could be handled under defence/emergency statutes.
A student could check wartime or defence statutes and historical rules for explicit provisions criminalizing impersonation or unauthorized wearing of uniforms to see if such offences were commonly placed outside the Official Secrets Act.
Explains Parliament's power to enact laws restricting rights of armed forces and police (Article 33) and lists various force-specific Acts, suggesting regulation of conduct related to those forces occurs in specialised statutes.
A student might look into the specific Acts and Rules for police/armed forces or the IPC to find provisions on impersonation/uniform misuse rather than expecting them inside the Official Secrets Act.
- Explicitly states the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 focuses on rules of evidence, implying it is procedural/evidentiary rather than a penal statute criminalizing interference.
- If the Act is about evidence, conduct-criminalization of misleading/interfering with officers would typically be found in penal or specific operational statutes, not the Evidence Act.
- Refers to witnesses being required to produce documents and to sections of the Evidence Act, indicating the Act deals with witness evidence and procedure.
- This procedural context supports the view that the Evidence Act governs evidence/attendance rather than creating offences against police/military duties.
This snippet lists the act 'Knowingly misleading or otherwise interfering with a police officer or military officer...' in a matching question that pairs actions with statutes (Official Secrets Act, 1923; Indian Evidence Act, 1872), suggesting students must know which statute governs such conduct.
A student could use this pattern to check authoritative lists (e.g., IPC, Police Act) to see which statute is actually paired with that offence rather than the Evidence Act.
States that a special panel could accept evidence 'not acceptable under the Indian Evidence Act', indicating the Evidence Act primarily governs admissibility of evidence rather than defining offences.
Use this rule (Evidence Act = rules of evidence) plus the fact that criminalization is usually in penal codes (IPC) to suspect the Evidence Act is unlikely to create that offence; verify in IPC/Police Acts.
Notes that amendments were made to the Indian Evidence Act along with Penal and procedural laws for sexual offences, showing the Evidence Act is amended in relation to how offences are tried, not necessarily to create those offences.
Infer that offences (like misleading/interfering) are typically in substantive criminal statutes and one should check amendments to IPC/CrPC or specific police/military statutes for such offences.
Explains Article 33 empowers Parliament to make laws restricting rights of armed/paramilitary/police forces and cites Acts (Army Act, Police Forces Act), indicating specific statutes govern military/police matters separate from the Evidence Act.
A student could look at those specialized Acts and the IPC for offences against officers, rather than expecting the Evidence Act to criminalize conduct.
Discusses criminal liability of public servants and references IPC and CrPC sections, implying that liability and offences are dealt with in penal/procedural codes rather than the Evidence Act.
Combine this with the Evidence Act's evidence-role (from snippet 9) to narrow the likely source of any offence to the IPC or police-specific statutes.
The snippet explicitly pairs the phrase 'Celebratory gunfire which can endanger the personal safety of others' with 'The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019', indicating that the Act is discussed in the context of celebratory gunfire.
A student could check the Act's text or authoritative summaries for provisions addressing misuse of firearms or specific prohibitions on discharge of weapons in public to see if celebratory fire is covered.
This snippet notes proposals to 'Change Arms Act' concerning control/issue of firearm licences, showing that amendments to the Arms Act address licensing/possession regulations.
Use the pattern that Arms Act amendments deal with licensing to look for new offences or expanded conditions in the 2019 amendment that might criminalize unsafe discharge (e.g., unlicensed use or dangerous use).
Explains general legal tools (Section 144 CrPC, Section 41 IPC on unlawful assemblies) that can be used to restrain acts posing 'danger to human life, health or safety', illustrating the legal framework for addressing dangerous public conduct.
Combine this general rule with a finding that the Arms (Amendment) Act adds offences for dangerous discharge—if so, one could infer celebratory gunfire that endangers others would fall under these public-safety norms.
Shows 2019 was a year of multiple legislative amendments (e.g., NIA Amendment), supporting the broader pattern that 2019 legislation included substantive changes across statutes.
Treat 2019 as a year of active amendment; so a student could reasonably prioritize reviewing the 2019 Arms amendment text for newly created offences relating to firearm misuse.
- [THE VERDICT]: Trap + Delayed Current Affairs. Pair 2 is the 'Sitter' (Logic Check), Pair 3 is 'Delayed CA' (2019 Act in 2023), and Pair 1 is the 'Bouncer' (Obscure Section 6 of OSA).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Criminal Justice Reforms & Internal Security Legislation. The transition from colonial control laws (OSA 1923) to modern public safety amendments (Arms Act 2019).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Limit reduced from 3 to 2 firearms; License validity increased to 5 years; 'Celebratory Gunfire' defined as offence). Official Secrets Act (Section 3: Spying; Section 5: Wrongful communication). IPC Section 171 (Wearing garb of public servant with fraudulent intent).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not memorize sections. Apply the 'Scope Test': The Evidence Act governs courtroom admissibility, not physical obstruction of police. The Arms Act governs firearms. The OSA governs state security (where impersonation is a method of spying). Match the 'Nature of Crime' to the 'Nature of Statute'.
The Official Secrets Act was employed alongside wartime regulations to impose security and censorship measures during emergencies.
High-yield for questions on colonial and post-colonial internal security law and state powers during emergencies. It links to topics on restrictions on speech, press censorship and legislation used to curb political activity; mastering it helps answer questions on legal tools used to maintain state security and their civil liberties impact.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 29: Development of Indian Press > During the Second World War > p. 562
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Why Militant Nationalism Grew > p. 279
The Defence of India Act created special criminal procedures and tribunals for wartime security, expanding the state's power to prosecute security-related offences.
Essential for understanding how emergency statutes alter normal criminal procedure and civil liberties. It connects to Official Secrets measures and to study of how wartime laws affect law-and-order, publishing and prosecution—useful for questions on legal responses to internal threats.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 3: Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement > 3.5 The Defence of India Act, 1915 > p. 36
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > The Rowlatt Act > p. 321
Article 33 authorizes Parliament to restrict or abrogate fundamental rights of armed forces, police and analogous organisations to ensure discipline and proper duty discharge.
Crucial constitutional concept for UPSC aspirants: explains legislative competence to regulate armed forces and police through special Acts (Army Act, Navy Act, Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act). It helps in answering questions on limits of fundamental rights, discipline in security forces, and the legal basis for specialized statutes.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > ARMED FORCES AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS > p. 100
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Scope of the Writs: I. Habeas corpus. > p. 160
The Indian Evidence Act governs what evidence is admissible in trials rather than creating substantive criminal offences.
High-yield for UPSC because it clarifies the difference between laws that set evidentiary rules and laws that define offences; it links to questions on trial procedure, historical exceptions to evidentiary rules, and interactions with special legislation. Mastery helps answer comparative questions on procedural versus substantive law.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > The Rowlatt Act > p. 320
Criminal liability and specific offences are dealt with under the Indian Penal Code and related criminal statutes, while evidence rules are separate.
Important for answering questions about which statutes create offences (IPC) versus which regulate court processes (Evidence Act/CrPC); useful for mapping statutory functions and for legal interpretation questions in GS and optional law papers.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 29: RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVANTS > CHAP. 291 RIGIITSAND LIABILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND PIJBUC SERVANTS 431 > p. 431
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > The Rowlatt Act > p. 320
Parliament can restrict or abrogate fundamental rights of armed, paramilitary and police forces to ensure discipline and proper discharge of duties, leading to special enactments.
High-yield for constitutional law and polity: links Article 33, enabling statutes (Army Act, Police Forces restrictions), and questions on balancing rights and discipline. Useful for questions on legislative competence, fundamental rights exceptions, and state security laws.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > ARMED FORCES AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS > p. 100
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Scope of the Writs: I. Habeas corpus. > p. 160
Preventive magistrate powers to restrain assemblies or acts posing danger to human life are directly relevant to legal measures against conduct that endangers others (for example, dangerous use of firearms).
High-yield for polity and law: connects public order law, criminal procedure and reasonable restrictions on freedoms. Mastering this helps answer questions on preventive action, public safety regulation, and limits on assemblies or hazardous conduct.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > Table 8.5 Rights under Article 19 and the Grounds of Restrictions > p. 87
The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. It replaced the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Key provision: Police can now collect biological samples (retina, iris scans) not just fingerprints. This is the sibling 'Police Reform' legislation likely to be tested next.
The 'Title-Function Mismatch'. Look at Pair 2: 'Interfering with an officer' is a physical, street-level crime. The 'Indian Evidence Act' is a procedural courtroom statute. A procedural law regarding documents/witnesses will NEVER define a physical crime like obstruction. Eliminate immediately.
Mains GS-3 (Internal Security): The Arms Act amendment directly links to 'Linkages of Organized Crime with Terrorism'. Stricter gun control is a state response to the proliferation of illegal small arms, which fuels internal insurgency.