Consider the following statements :
- According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances.
- The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention.
- 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?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — Only two
This question tests knowledge of constitutional provisions related to state protection, preventive detention, and anti-terrorism laws. Out of the three statements, two are correct while one is incorrect regarding the admissibility of confessions under POTA.
✅ Statement 1 – Correct: Article 355 mandates that the Union shall protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance, ensuring constitutional governance.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: Article 22(3)(b) exempts preventive detention cases from the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice, as provided under Article 22(1).
❌ Statement 3 – Incorrect: Section 32(1) of POTA 2002 explicitly allowed confessions made before a police officer of the rank of Superintendent or above to be admissible as evidence in court.
📝 Short Notes: Constitutional Provisions on Preventive Detention & State Protection
| Article/Provision | Key Features |
|---|---|
| Article 355 | Union's duty to protect States from external aggression and internal disturbance; ensure constitutional governance in States |
| Article 22(1) | Right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner; right to be informed of grounds of arrest |
| Article 22(3) | Rights under Article 22(1) and 22(2) do not apply to: (a) enemy aliens, (b) persons detained under preventive detention laws |
| Article 22(4)-(7) | Safeguards for preventive detention: maximum 3 months without Advisory Board approval; person must be informed of grounds; right to make representation |
| POTA 2002 (Repealed 2004) |
Section 32(1) made confessions before police officers (SP rank and above) admissible as evidence; controversial provision leading to its repeal |
Question 1 of 1 Special Provisions for States
Practice PYQ questions from this topic across all years
First question in this topic
All questions in this topic completed!