Comprehension
On December 26, 2021, for the first time since the present government came to power in 2014, the Union Home Ministry constituted a panel led by its officers to review the withdrawal of the Armed areas. The Act was amended in 1972 and the powers to declare an area as “disturbed” were conferred concurrently upon the Central Government along with the States. Currently, the MHA issues periodic “disturbed area” notification to extend AFSPA only for Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, where it is applicable in the districts of Tirap, Changlang, Longding and areas falling under Namsai and Mahadevpur police stations bordering Assam. The notification for Manipur and Assam is issued by the State Governments. Tripura revoked the Act in 2015 and Meghalaya was under AFSPA for 27 years, until it was revoked by the MHA from April 1, 2018. The Act was implemented in a 20-km area along the border with Assam. Jammu and Kashmir has a separate J & K Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1990.
Question: 1
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:
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:
Show Hint
For AFSPA, remember: *Governor + UT Administrator + Central Government* all share the power to declare a “disturbed area”.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Governor of any State
- Administrator of a Union Territory
- Central Government
- All of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
Under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act), 1958 (AFSPA), the power to declare an area as a *“disturbed area”* is vested in:
- the Governor of a State,
- the Administrator of a Union Territory, and
- the Central Government.
This concurrent power allows any of these authorities to issue or extend the notification depending on the security situation.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Elimination approach:
The 1972 amendment to AFSPA gave the power to declare a "disturbed area" concurrently to more than one authority, not to a single one. Since the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, and the Central Government each separately hold this power under the Act, no single option among the first three fully covers who can issue the notification. That makes All of the above the only complete and accurate choice.
The 1972 amendment to AFSPA gave the power to declare a "disturbed area" concurrently to more than one authority, not to a single one. Since the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, and the Central Government each separately hold this power under the Act, no single option among the first three fully covers who can issue the notification. That makes All of the above the only complete and accurate choice.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -3
The question asks who holds the power to notify a "disturbed area" under AFSPA. Check what each option actually covers.
- Governor of any State: correct in isolation, since a State Governor does hold this power, but this names only one of the authorities, not the complete picture.
- Administrator of a Union Territory: also correct in isolation for the same reason, a UT Administrator holds this power too, but again only part of the full picture.
- Central Government: also holds this power concurrently, but naming only the Centre still leaves out the Governor and the Administrator.
- All of the above: since the 1972 amendment gives this power concurrently to all three authorities together, and each of the first three options names only one of them, this is the only option that captures the complete legal position.
Because the law splits this power three ways rather than giving it to a single authority, no single-authority option can be the full answer.
The correct answer is All of the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
AFSPA was introduced in Meghalaya in the year:
AFSPA was introduced in Meghalaya in the year:
Show Hint
Remember: Meghalaya → AFSPA from 1991 to 2018.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- 1995
- 1999
- 1991
- 1989
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
AFSPA was imposed in Meghalaya in 1991, where it remained in force for 27 years before being revoked in 2018.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Elimination approach:
The question also states that AFSPA remained in force in Meghalaya for 27 years before being lifted on 1 April 2018. Counting back 27 years from 2018 gives 1991, not 1995, 1999, or 1989. This confirms the year of introduction as 1991.
The question also states that AFSPA remained in force in Meghalaya for 27 years before being lifted on 1 April 2018. Counting back 27 years from 2018 gives 1991, not 1995, 1999, or 1989. This confirms the year of introduction as 1991.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -3
The question asks for the year AFSPA was introduced in Meghalaya. Check each year against the historical record.
- 1995: too late, four years after AFSPA actually reached Meghalaya.
- 1999: also too late, and does not match the 27-year duration the state was later reported to have lived under the Act.
- 1991: matches both the historical record of when the Act was extended to Meghalaya and the 27-year count working backward from its 2018 revocation.
- 1989: too early by two years.
Only one year lines up with both the historical record and the duration mentioned elsewhere about Meghalaya.
The correct answer is 1991.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Consider the following statements about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and mark the correct option.
Consider the following statements about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and mark the correct option.
Show Hint
Irom Sharmila’s protest (2000–2016) is directly associated with AFSPA criticisms—useful for eliminating incorrect options.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- 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 mainstream.
- Irom Chanu Sharmila, an activist from Manipur, became a sensitizing 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.
- Both (A) and (B) are correct
- None of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
Both statements accurately describe major criticisms and social movements related to AFSPA.
Statement (A) highlights human rights concerns.
Statement (B) correctly mentions Irom Sharmila’s 16-year hunger strike against AFSPA.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Statement-by-statement check:
Statement (A) is a well-documented criticism, human rights bodies and civil-society groups have long argued that AFSPA's special powers can lead to excesses and need stronger checks. Statement (B) is also historically accurate, Irom Chanu Sharmila of Manipur fasted from 2000 to August 2016 in protest against the Act. Since both individual statements hold up on their own merits, the option claiming both are correct is the right one, which rules out "None of the above."
Statement (A) is a well-documented criticism, human rights bodies and civil-society groups have long argued that AFSPA's special powers can lead to excesses and need stronger checks. Statement (B) is also historically accurate, Irom Chanu Sharmila of Manipur fasted from 2000 to August 2016 in protest against the Act. Since both individual statements hold up on their own merits, the option claiming both are correct is the right one, which rules out "None of the above."
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -3
The question asks which option correctly evaluates two statements about AFSPA. Check each statement and each combined option on its own merits.
- Statement (A) alone: accurately reflects a real and well-documented criticism, but picking it alone would ignore that statement (B) is also true.
- Statement (B) alone: also accurately reflects a real historical fact about Irom Sharmila's protest, but picking it alone would ignore that statement (A) is also true.
- Both (A) and (B) are correct: since each statement independently checks out against the historical record, this option reflects the full truth.
- None of the above: would only be right if both statements were false, but neither is, so this option cannot be correct.
Because both individual statements are independently true, the option combining them is the only complete and accurate choice.
The correct answer is Both (A) and (B) are correct.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
In 2005, a government-appointed five-member committee recommended that AFSPA be repealed. It suggested amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to handle terrorism. Who headed this committee?
In 2005, a government-appointed five-member committee recommended that AFSPA be repealed. It suggested amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to handle terrorism. Who headed this committee?
Show Hint
AFSPA repeal recommendation → Jeevan Reddy Committee.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- B. P. Jeevan Reddy
- Abhishek Singhvi
- Soli Sorabjee
- Ram Jethmalani
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005), headed by Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, recommended the repeal of AFSPA, stating that it created a sense of discrimination and alienation in the Northeast.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Elimination approach:
Soli Sorabjee is known for heading a separate committee on police reforms, not this AFSPA review panel, while Abhishek Singhvi and Ram Jethmalani are lawyer-politicians who were not associated with chairing this particular five-member committee. The 2005 committee that recommended repealing AFSPA and strengthening the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act instead was headed by Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy.
Soli Sorabjee is known for heading a separate committee on police reforms, not this AFSPA review panel, while Abhishek Singhvi and Ram Jethmalani are lawyer-politicians who were not associated with chairing this particular five-member committee. The 2005 committee that recommended repealing AFSPA and strengthening the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act instead was headed by Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -3
The question asks who headed the 2005 committee that recommended repealing AFSPA. Check what each named person is actually known for.
- B. P. Jeevan Reddy: a former judge who chaired the five-member committee set up in 2005 specifically to review AFSPA and recommend its repeal in favour of a strengthened Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
- Abhishek Singhvi: a lawyer and politician known for parliamentary and legal commentary work, not for chairing this AFSPA review committee.
- Soli Sorabjee: a former Attorney General known for other legal reform work, such as police-reform recommendations, but not this particular panel.
- Ram Jethmalani: a senior lawyer and politician with no recorded role heading the 2005 AFSPA review committee.
Only one of the four names is actually tied to this specific 2005 committee.
The correct answer is B. P. Jeevan Reddy.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
AFSPA is currently in force in:
AFSPA is currently in force in:
Show Hint
AFSPA still applies in large parts of the Northeast and Jammu & Kashmir—a key exam fact.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Arunachal Pradesh and Assam
- Nagaland and Manipur
- Jammu and Kashmir
- All of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
AFSPA is presently in force in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, and Jammu & Kashmir (under a separate 1990 Act).
Thus, all regions listed in the options fall under AFSPA jurisdiction.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Elimination approach:
AFSPA is not limited to just one of the listed regions, it currently applies in parts of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam, in Nagaland and Manipur, and in Jammu & Kashmir under its own 1990 version of the Act. Since each individual option describes only part of the picture, the complete and accurate choice is All of the above.
AFSPA is not limited to just one of the listed regions, it currently applies in parts of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam, in Nagaland and Manipur, and in Jammu & Kashmir under its own 1990 version of the Act. Since each individual option describes only part of the picture, the complete and accurate choice is All of the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -3
The question asks where AFSPA is currently in force. Check each region grouping against where the Act (or its equivalent) actually applies today.
- Arunachal Pradesh and Assam: AFSPA is indeed active in parts of both, but naming only these two leaves out Nagaland, Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir.
- Nagaland and Manipur: AFSPA is also active here, but this option alone leaves out Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.
- Jammu and Kashmir: AFSPA-equivalent powers apply here too, under its own 1990 Act, but this alone leaves out all the Northeastern states.
- All of the above: since AFSPA or its equivalent is currently active in every region named across the first three options, this is the only complete answer.
Each of the first three options is true but incomplete on its own, since AFSPA-type provisions apply across all of them at once.
The correct answer is All of the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT Questions
- In the realm of contemporary literature, the interplay between character and setting is a nuanced dance that shapes the narrative’s essence. The setting, often described with painstaking detail, becomes more than a backdrop; it becomes a character, influencing the plot and character development.
Consider, for instance, the barren expanse of the desert in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The arid landscape mirrors the sense of isolation felt by the protagonist, Gogol, as he navigates his identity crisis in a foreign land. The relentless sun and vast sands are not mere descriptions; they are the silent witnesses to his inner turmoil.
On the other end of the literary spectrum, there is Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The lush, vibrant Kerala backwaters are not just the setting; they are a character woven into the fabric of the story. The teeming, humid landscape reflects the complex web of human relationships and secrets that unravel in the narrative. This interplay is not confined to contemporary literature alone. In Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy Macbeth, the eerie and foreboding setting of the Scottish moors casts a dark shadow over the characters’ actions. The moors, shrouded in mist and mystery, serve as an ever-present omen of the impending tragedy. - The crisis of justice that is the subject matter of discussion in the media today is in fact the crisis of “justice for the middle class”. The main difference between India and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries is that whereas the middle class in these countries has reasonable access to justice, in India it does not. A vocal and powerful middle class has emerged in India since 1991. It is demanding reasonable access to justice. Much of the judicial reform effort will help meet this demand…
The question of justice for the poor is, however, an altogether different challenge. No country in the world has been able to secure justice for the poor. Most of the jails of the richest countries are filled with the poorest. The “masses” are more often victims of the criminal justice system than of crime. In India as well, jails are almost exclusively filled with the poor. The civil justice system is hardly accessible to them. They are often victimised by lawyers, touts and court staff. They are docket-excluded, a new type of untouchability. The language and the logic—and the colonial and feudal culture—of the judicial system are alien to them. It rarely takes cognisance of their needs and interests.
Their main concern, therefore, is to escape the attention of the justice system, criminal and civil. A landless Dalit person in the interior of Madhya Pradesh once gave me an insightful definition of a court from the perspective of the masses: “A court is a place where you are forcibly taken by the police to be punished; no one goes to a court.” In contrast, many lawyers and judges colloquially define a court as “a temple of justice where rights are protected”.
These sharply divergent visions mean that justice for one section is often injustice for another. Protecting the livelihood of traditional taxi and auto drivers from predatory pricing by corporate app-based taxi providers by imaginatively using the available tools of law to delay their incursion would be seen by the rich and by sections of the middle class as a failure of the judicial system, and possibly as also resulting in a downgrading of the “ease of doing business” measure. However, the masses would see such a judicial intervention as strong evidence of a good justice system. Although the conflict over competing visions of the nation and conflicting demands from social and economic segments have confined judicial reform of judicial administration mainly to “neutral” areas such as process reform, procedural law, technology, planning and court and case management, judge strength, and the workload of judges, there has been considerable improvement in these areas, and the judicial system has improved its performance.
[Extracted, with edits, from “Justice and the Two Ideas of India”, by G. Mohan Gopal, Frontline] - Everything she wanted was here, at Carignano, in Kasauli. Here, on the ridge of the mountain, in this quiet house. It was the place, and the time of life, that she had wanted and prepared for all her life-as she realized on the first day at Carignano, with a great, cool flowering of relief - and at last she had it. She wanted no one and nothing else. Whatever else came, or happened here, would be an unwelcome intrusion and distraction. This she tried to convey to the plodding postman with a cold and piercing stare from the height of the ridge onto his honest bull back. Unfortunately, he did not look up at her on the hilltop but stared stolidly down at the dust piling onto his shoes as he plodded on. A bullock-man, an oafish ox, she thought bitterly. She stepped backwards into the garden and the wind suddenly billowed up and threw the pine branches about as though to curtain her. She was grey, tall and thin and her silk sari made a sweeping, shivering sound and she fancied she could merge with the pine trees and be mistaken for one. To be a tree, no more and no less, was all she was prepared to undertake.
What pleased and satisfied her so, here at Carignano, was its barrenness. This was the chief virtue of all Kasauli of course-its starkness. It had rocks, it had pines, it had light and air. In every direction there was a sweeping view - to the north, of the mountains, to the south, of the plains. Occasionally an eagle swam through this clear unobstructed mass of light and air, that was all. And Carignano, her home on the ridge, had no more than that. Why should it? The sun shone on its white walls. Its windows were open the ones facing north opened on to the blue waves of the Himalayas flowing out and up to the line of ice and snow sketched upon the sky, while those that faced south looked down the plunging cliff to the plain stretching out, flat and sere to the blurred horizon.
Yes, there were some apricot trees close to the house. There were clumps of iris that had finished blooming. There was the kitchen with a wing of smoke lifting out of its chimney and a stack of wood outside its door. But these were incidental, almost unimportant.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Fire on the Mountain” by Anita Desai] - English literature is a vast and diverse field that has left an indelible mark on the world of letters. From the eloquent plays of William Shakespeare to the complex novels of Jane Austen and the profound poetry of William Wordsworth, English literature offers a window into the human experience. One of the luminaries of English literature is William Shakespeare, often hailed as the greatest playwright in the history of English language. His works, including Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, are celebrated for their exploration of human nature, love, ambition, and tragedy. His characters, such as the tormented Hamlet and the star-crossed lovers Romeo and Juliet, continue to captivate readers and audiences worldwide.
The 19th century ushered in a new era of literary giants. Jane Austen’s novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, provide incisive social commentary through the lens of wit and romance. Austen’s heroines, like Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood, remain beloved literary figures known for their intelligence and resilience. The Romantic era brought forth poets like William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who celebrated * 8 UG the beauty of nature and the emotional intensity of the individual. Wordsworth’s ‘‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’’ and Coleridge’s ‘‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’’ are testament to the power of the written words to evoke profound emotions and imagery. Moving towards 20th century, English literature continued to evolve. Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking novel Mrs. Dalloway explored the inner thoughts and lives of its characters with a modernist narrative style. Dystopian visions, as seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four provided stark warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and the erosion of individual freedom.
Today, English literature is a global phenomenon, transcending borders and languages. Indian authors like Arundhati Roy, with her novel The God of Small Things, have won prestigious international literary awards. The book not only explores intricate family dynamics but also delves into the broader socio-political landscape of India. In summary, English literature is a testament to the enduring power of storytelling and the written word. It encompasses an array of authors, themes, and styles that continue to captivate and inspire readers across the world. - On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh. He proceeded there with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square, which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops’ fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer’s own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. The people were not able to escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes, the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those who lived nearby came and carried away some of the wounded from the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India…
Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot, just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible business.
[Col. Wedgwood, MP, speaking in the British Parliament, 22 December 1919]
View More Questions