Question

Power to notify parts of or the whole of a State or a Union Territory as a 'disturbed area', under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is vested with:

• A. Governor of any State
• B. Administrator of a Union Territory
• C. Central Government
• D. All of the above
• A. 1995
• B. 1991
• C. 1999
• D. 1989
• A. Detractors and Human Rights Organizations, as well as many sections of civil society, argue that the Act often leads to excesses and require checks and balances or could alienate the people instead of integrating them with the main stream.
• B. from Chanu Sharmila, an activist from Manipur, became ansensitizing figure symbolizing the protest against AFSPA after she sat on an indefinite fast in 2000, demanding its repeal and ended it only in August 2016.
• C. Both (A) and (B) are correct
• D. None of the above
• A. B. P. Jeevan Reddy
• B. Abhishek Singhvi
• C. Soli Sorabjee
• D. Ram Jethmalani
• A. Arunachal Pradesh and Assam
• B. Nagaland and manipur
• C. Jammu and Kashmir
• D. All of the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D): All of the above.

Answer 2

The question asks who has the authority, under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, to declare a State or Union Territory (or part of it) a disturbed area. Let's look at each authority named.

1. Governor of any State: Under the Act, the Governor of a State is indeed empowered to notify the whole or part of that State as disturbed. This is one of the designated authorities, but not the only one, so it is only part of the full answer.
2. Administrator of a Union Territory: Similarly, the Administrator of a Union Territory holds the same notifying power for the territory under their charge. This too is a valid authority, but again only one piece of the picture.
3. Central Government: The Central Government also holds this notifying power, and in fact can act concurrently with the Governor or Administrator, extending or issuing disturbed area declarations directly, as seen in practice with Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
4. All of the above: Since the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, and the Central Government are all independently empowered under the Act to make this declaration, none of the first three options alone captures the full legal position. Only this option accounts for all three authorities together.

Because the power is held concurrently by all three bodies rather than exclusively by any one of them, the complete answer must include all of them.

Therefore, the correct answer is All of the above.

Answer 3

The correct option is (C): 1999.

Answer 4

The question asks for the year AFSPA was first applied in Meghalaya. This can be worked out directly from the timeline of the State's relationship with the Act: Meghalaya remained under AFSPA for 27 years before the Act was withdrawn from the State on 1 April 2018. Counting back 27 years from 2018 gives 1991, so that is the year the Act was introduced there. Let's check each option against this.

1. 1995: Counting forward from 1995 to the 2018 withdrawal gives only 23 years, not the 27 years on record, so this year does not fit the known duration.
2. 1991: Counting forward from 1991 to 2018 gives exactly 27 years, matching the documented period Meghalaya spent under the Act, which was applied there within a 20-km belt along the Assam border. This is consistent with the known timeline.
3. 1999: From 1999 to 2018 is only 19 years, well short of the 27-year period on record, so this does not match.
4. 1989: From 1989 to 2018 works out to 29 years, two years more than the documented duration, so this also does not fit.

Only 1991 lines up exactly with the 27-year span that ended with the Act's withdrawal from Meghalaya in 2018.

Therefore, the correct answer is 1991.

Answer 5

The correct option is (C): Both (A) and (B) are correct.

Answer 6

This question presents two statements about AFSPA and asks which combination of them is accurate. Let's examine each statement, and then each option, in turn.

1. Statement (A) alone: This statement says that human rights organisations, detractors, and sections of civil society argue that AFSPA leads to excesses and needs checks and balances, or risks alienating rather than integrating the people it is meant to protect. This is a well-documented and accurate description of the criticism that has followed the Act for decades, so statement (A) is true.
2. Statement (B) alone: This statement describes Irom Chanu Sharmila, an activist from Manipur, who became a symbol of the protest against AFSPA after she began an indefinite hunger fast in 2000 demanding its repeal, ending the fast only in August 2016. This matches the well-known history of her protest, so statement (B) is also true.
3. Both (A) and (B) are correct: Since both individual statements hold up as accurate on their own, the option combining them is the one that reflects the full picture, rather than singling out only one.
4. None of the above: This would only be correct if both statements were false, or if one of them contained a factual error. Since both statements check out independently, this option cannot be right.

As both individual statements are factually sound, the option that acknowledges both together is the correct one.

Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (B) are correct.

Answer 7

The correct option is (A): B. P. Jeevan Reddy.

Answer 8

The question asks which person chaired the five-member committee set up in 2005 that recommended repealing AFSPA in favour of a suitably amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Let's look at each name.

1. B. P. Jeevan Reddy: Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, headed this five-member review committee, formally set up to examine AFSPA in the context of the Northeast. The committee's 2005 report recommended repealing AFSPA and folding its necessary provisions into an amended UAPA, exactly as described in the passage.
2. Abhishek Singhvi: Singhvi is a senior advocate and Congress politician who has chaired various parliamentary standing committees, but he was not the head of the 2005 AFSPA review committee.
3. Soli Sorabjee: Sorabjee was a former Attorney General of India known for his work on constitutional and human rights law, but the AFSPA review committee of 2005 was not chaired by him.
4. Ram Jethmalani: Jethmalani was a prominent criminal lawyer and parliamentarian, but he had no role as chair of this particular committee.

Of the four names, only Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy is correctly associated with heading the 2005 committee described in the question.

Therefore, the correct answer is B. P. Jeevan Reddy.

Answer 9

The correct option is (D): All of the above.

Answer 10

The question asks where AFSPA (in its various forms) is presently in force. Let's check each option against the current picture.

1. Arunachal Pradesh and Assam: AFSPA remains active in parts of Arunachal Pradesh and in Assam, so this location is indeed covered, but it is not the only place where the Act applies.
2. Nagaland and Manipur: The Act also continues to apply in Nagaland and Manipur, so this too is a valid location, but again only part of the complete picture.
3. Jammu and Kashmir: J&K is governed by its own, separate Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1990, which serves the same broad purpose as the 1958 Act, extending similar special powers there as well.
4. All of the above: Since special-powers legislation of this kind is presently active in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam, in Nagaland and Manipur, and in Jammu and Kashmir (through its own dedicated Act), none of the individual regions alone accounts for the full extent of where such powers currently apply.

Because all three regions listed currently fall under some form of this special-powers regime, the complete answer has to include all of them together.

Therefore, the correct answer is All of the above.