UPSC CISF-AC-EXE Archives

11. In which one among the following cases, the Supreme Court issued detai

In which one among the following cases, the Supreme Court issued detailed directions for the protection of the rights of the arrested person?

D. K. Basu vs State of West Bengal

Lalita Kumari vs State of UP

Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar

Parmanand Katara vs Union of India

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Supreme Court of India issued detailed directions for the protection of the rights of arrested persons in the landmark case of D. K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1996). This judgment laid down 11 specific guidelines that police and other agencies must follow during arrest and detention.

The question tests knowledge of landmark Supreme Court judgments concerning fundamental rights, specifically the rights of individuals during arrest and detention.

– Lalita Kumari vs State of UP (2013) dealt with the mandatory registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code for cognizable offences.
– Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar (1983) is a significant case regarding the right to compensation for illegal detention, establishing the principle of compensatory jurisprudence for violation of fundamental rights.
– Parmanand Katara vs Union of India (1989) held that medical aid should be provided to accident victims immediately without waiting for legal formalities.

Join Our Telegram Channel

12. Which one among the following legal propositions is not correct with

Which one among the following legal propositions is *not* correct with regard to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

When there is a provision that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved unless it is disproved or may call for proof of it

When there is a provision that the court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless it is disproved

When there is a provision that the court shall presume a fact, it may call for proof

When one fact is declared to be conclusive proof of another, the court shall, on proof of one fact, regard the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines “may presume”, “shall presume”, and “conclusive proof”.
– “May presume”: The court *may* either regard the fact as proved (unless disproved) *or may call for proof*. (Matches statement A).
– “Shall presume”: The court *shall* regard the fact as proved *unless and until it is disproved*. (Matches statement B).
– “Conclusive proof”: The court *shall* regard one fact as proved on proof of another and *shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it*. (Matches statement D).
Statement C says, “When there is a provision that the court shall presume a fact, it may call for proof”. This is incorrect because “shall presume” mandates the court to accept the fact as proved until disproved; the option to “call for proof” is associated with “may presume”.

The distinction between “may presume” and “shall presume” lies in the discretion of the court. “May presume” allows the court discretion to either presume the fact or demand proof. “Shall presume” removes this discretion and mandates the court to presume the fact unless rebutted by evidence. “Conclusive proof” is the strongest, where one fact’s proof irrevocably establishes another, barring contrary evidence.

Join Our Telegram Channel

13. ‘Court’, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not include which o

‘Court’, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not include which of the following?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Magistrates

Arbitrators

Civil Judges

Persons legally authorized to take evidence

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines “Court”. According to this definition, “Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, *except arbitrators*, legally authorised to take evidence.

The definition explicitly excludes arbitrators from the purview of the Indian Evidence Act. While arbitrators conduct proceedings where evidence is presented, they are not bound by the technical rules of evidence laid down in the Act unless the arbitration agreement specifically requires it. Magistrates and Civil Judges are included as they function as courts administering justice under various laws. Persons legally authorized to take evidence (like Commissioners appointed by a court to record evidence) are also included, provided they are not arbitrators.

14. What does ‘evidence’, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, mean? 1.

What does ‘evidence’, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, mean?

1. Statements in relation to matters of fact under inquiry which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses
2. Documents produced for the inspection of the court including electronic records

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines “Evidence”. According to this definition, “Evidence” means and includes:
1. All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence. (This matches statement 1).
2. All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called Documentary evidence. (This matches statement 2).

The definition in the Act is exhaustive; only these two categories constitute ‘evidence’ under the Act. Statements made outside court or documents not produced for inspection by the court are not considered ‘evidence’ in the legal sense used by the Act. Both oral testimonies by witnesses and documentary proof (including electronic records) produced before the court fall under the definition.

Join Our Telegram Channel

15. Which one among the following provisions of the Constitution of India

Which one among the following provisions of the Constitution of India prohibits forced labour such as traffic in human beings, Begar and such other similar forms of labour, but does not prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes without discrimination?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Article 23

Article 24

Article 25

Article 26

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A.

Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits traffic in human beings, begar (forced labour), and other similar forms of forced labour. However, Article 23(2) clarifies that nothing in the article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, provided such imposition does not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.

This provision falls under the Fundamental Rights category, specifically the Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23-24). Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below the age of fourteen in factories or mines or any other hazardous employment. Articles 25 and 26 relate to the Right to Freedom of Religion.

16. Consider the following statements relating to identification of arrest

Consider the following statements relating to identification of arrested person under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :

1. An arrested person can be directed to subject himself to identification in the manner prescribed by the court.
2. If the person identifying the arrested is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process must be videographed in all cases.
3. The supervision of a Magistrate is not mandatory if the person identifying is mentally or physically disabled.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only

1 and 2 only

2 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B.

Section 54A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deals with the identification of arrested persons.
1. Section 54A(1) states that the Court having jurisdiction *may* direct the arrested person to subject himself to identification “in such manner as the Court may deem fit”. Thus, statement 1 is correct.
2. Section 54A(3) states that the identification proceedings under sub-section (2) *shall be videographed*. Sub-section (2) applies when the person identifying the arrested person is mentally or physically disabled. Therefore, if the identifier is disabled, the process must be videographed. Thus, statement 2 is correct.
3. Section 54A(2) explicitly states that if the person identifying is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process *shall take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate*. Therefore, the supervision of a Magistrate is mandatory in this specific case, not optional. Thus, statement 3 is incorrect.

Section 54A was inserted into the CrPC to provide a legal basis for conducting test identification parades (TIPs) under judicial supervision, particularly in sensitive cases involving vulnerable identifiers. The videography requirement ensures transparency and reliability of the identification process when conducted with a disabled identifier.

Join Our Telegram Channel

17. Which one among the following rights is not expressly provided under A

Which one among the following rights is not expressly provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India to a person who has been arrested and detained?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Right to get bail

Right to know the grounds of arrest

Right not to remain detained beyond twenty-four hours of arrest without the authority of a Magistrate

Right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A.

Article 22 of the Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to a person who has been arrested and detained. Article 22(1) provides the right to be informed of the grounds for arrest and the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one’s choice. Article 22(2) grants the right to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and the right not to be detained beyond this period without the magistrate’s authority.

While the right to bail is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system and is provided for under statutes like the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not a right expressly mentioned or guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution. Article 22 focuses on procedural safeguards concerning arrest and detention rather than the substantive right to be released on bail.

18. Which one among the following provisions of the Constitution of India

Which one among the following provisions of the Constitution of India relates to preventive detention?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Article 19

Article 20

Article 21

Article 22

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D.

Article 22 of the Constitution of India provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. Clauses (4) to (7) of Article 22 specifically deal with provisions related to preventive detention, outlining limitations on the period of detention and the procedure for review by an Advisory Board.

Article 19 deals with the right to freedom (speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, profession). Article 20 provides protection in respect of conviction for offences (ex-post facto laws, double jeopardy, self-incrimination). Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty according to the procedure established by law. While Article 21 is broadly related to personal liberty and detention, Article 22 contains the specific constitutional framework governing both punitive and preventive detention.

19. Amendments to which one among the following Articles to the Constituti

Amendments to which one among the following Articles to the Constitution of India have not been enforced till now?

Article 20(1)

Article 20(2)

Article 21

Article 22(4)

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D.

Section 3 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 sought to amend Article 22(4) of the Constitution. The amendment aimed to reduce the maximum period for which a person may be detained under a preventive detention law without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board from three months to two months. However, this specific provision (Section 3 of the 44th Amendment Act) was never brought into force by the government through a notification in the Official Gazette.

As a result, the original text of Article 22(4), which allows preventive detention for a period longer than three months only if an Advisory Board has reported sufficient cause before the expiration of the said three months, remains in effect. Amendments related to Articles 20(1), 20(2), and 21 (specifically the addition of Article 21A by the 86th Amendment) have been duly enforced.

Join Our Telegram Channel

20. Consider the following statements with regard to the Protection of Hum

Consider the following statements with regard to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993:

1. It is mandatory to have at least one woman Member in the National Human Rights Commission having the knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.
2. It is mandatory to have at least three Members in the National Human Rights Commission having the knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.
3. The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is deemed to be a Member of the National Human Rights Commission for certain purposes only.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel

1 only

2 only

2 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D.

Based on the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (as amended in 2019):
1. Section 3(2)(d) mandates the appointment of three Members from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights, and the proviso states that at least one person out of these three Members shall be a woman. Thus, statement 1 is correct.
2. Section 3(2)(d) requires the appointment of exactly three Members with knowledge or experience in human rights. Stating “at least three” is technically correct as three fulfills the condition of being “at least three”. Thus, statement 2 is correct.
3. Section 3(3) lists the Chairpersons of various National Commissions (including the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities) who shall be deemed to be Members of the Commission *for the discharge of functions specified in clauses (b) to (j) of sub-section (1) of section 12*. This means they are members for specific investigative and recommending functions, aligning with the phrase “for certain purposes only”. Thus, statement 3 is correct.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) comprises a Chairperson and five full-time Members, plus seven *ex officio* Members who are chairpersons of other national commissions. The five full-time Members include two judicial members and three members with knowledge or experience in human rights, one of whom must be a woman. The *ex officio* members participate in specific functions. All three statements accurately reflect provisions related to the composition or membership of the NHRC under the amended Act.