The Indian military occupies a border village believed to be harbouring insurgents and asked the residents to vacate their houses in a night operation. Which one among the following statements is the correct interpretation of this incident?
India is a democracy and no citizen can be asked to leave their home without a warrant. Hence, this act constitutes a human rights violation.
The military operation does not constitute a human rights violation as it is operating in an insurgency infested area.
Under the Indian Constitution, every individual is entitled to basic fundamental rights and hence the military cannot ask anyone to leave their house on mere suspicion of supporting insurgents. Hence, this act by the military constitutes a human rights violation.
Just mere suspicion of supporting insurgency cannot be used as a pretext to occupy a village. Hence, the military action constitutes a human rights violation.
Answer is Wrong!
Answer is Right!
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2011
The correct interpretation is C. Forcing residents to vacate their homes on mere suspicion of supporting insurgents without due process infringes upon their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution and can be considered a human rights violation.
– The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) and protections against arbitrary action.
– Asking citizens to vacate their homes, even in insurgency areas, based on mere suspicion and without proper legal procedure or compensation, is a significant restriction on their rights.
– While security forces operate under difficult conditions in insurgency areas and may have specific legal powers (like under AFSPA, if applicable), these powers are still subject to judicial review and are expected to be exercised reasonably and with minimum infringement on fundamental rights.
– Violations of fundamental rights by state actors, including the military, constitute human rights violations.