UPSC Prelims 2023 Q77: Indian Polity – Fundamental Rights
- (a) Only one
- (b) Only two
- (c) All three
- (d) None
Answer: (b) Only two
Explanation
Constitution, Legal Counsel, and Anti-Terrorism Law
| Statement | Claim | Verdict | Correct Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Constitution has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances | TRUE | Article 355: 'It shall be the duty of the Union to... protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance.' This is a constitutional duty of the Union, not the state. |
| 2 | Constitution exempts States from providing legal counsel to persons held for preventive detention | TRUE | Article 22(3)(b): A person detained under preventive detention law is NOT entitled to the right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice. This is an explicit constitutional exception to the right to legal counsel. |
| 3 | Under POTA 2002, police confession cannot be used as evidence | FALSE | The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) controversially allowed confessions before a police officer (of Deputy Superintendent rank) to be admissible as evidence — unlike CrPC which excludes police confessions. This was one of the most criticised provisions of POTA. |
Statements 1 and 2 correct → Only two.
Answer: (b) Only two.
Why each option is right or wrong
- (a) Incorrect. 'Only one' — both the Union's duty to protect states from internal disturbances and the preventive detention legal counsel exception are correct.
- (b) CORRECT. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is false — POTA specifically allowed police confessions as evidence.
- (c) Incorrect. 'All three' — POTA's most controversial provision was exactly the admissibility of police confessions, which normal CrPC prohibits.
- (d) Incorrect. 'None' — Article 355 (Union duty to protect states) is an unambiguous constitutional provision.
Key point
Art 355 = Union duty to protect states from internal disturbances ✓. Art 22(3)(b) = preventive detention = no right to legal counsel ✓. POTA 2002 = police confessions WERE admissible ✗ (opposite of Statement 3).
Remember
The Constitution requires the Union to protect states from internal disturbances (Article 355) and exempts providing legal counsel for preventive detention (Article 22(3)(b)). However, POTA 2002 controversially DID allow police confessions as evidence — Statement 3 is false.
Common mistakes
- Thinking preventive detention allows full legal rights — Article 22(3) specifically removes the right to consult a lawyer for persons under preventive detention.
- Not knowing POTA's controversial provisions — POTA (repealed 2004) allowed police confessions as evidence, which was internationally criticised.
- Confusing CrPC rule (police confessions inadmissible) with POTA (made them admissible) — POTA was a special law overriding normal criminal procedure.
Exam tip
POTA = police confessions ADMISSIBLE (this is what made it controversial). Normal law = inadmissible. Article 355 = Union protects states. Article 22(3) = preventive detention = no lawyer right. Statement 3's 'cannot be used as evidence' = completely wrong for POTA.
Sources
- Constitution of India — Articles 22(3), 355
- Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 — Section 32 (Confessions)