Supreme Court Issues Notice on Alleged Custodial Assault of Woman Advocate

सही उत्तर: B

Statement 1 is incorrect. The right against custodial torture is not explicitly mentioned under Article 20. It is primarily considered an integral part of the 'Right to Life and Personal Liberty' guaranteed under Article 21, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is correct. The D.K. Basu judgment (1997) is a landmark ruling that issued detailed guidelines for police to follow during arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and deaths. Statement 3 is incorrect. The NHRC is a recommendatory body. While it can investigate human rights violations, recommend compensation, and suggest disciplinary action, it does not have the power to directly prosecute individuals. Prosecution falls under the purview of the criminal justice system.

सही उत्तर: C

Statement 1 is correct. The National Police Commission, headed by Dharma Vira, was indeed the first comprehensive review of the Indian police system after independence, submitting eight reports between 1979 and 1981. Statement 2 is correct. The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) issued seven directives for police reforms, including the establishment of State Security Commissions, Police Establishment Boards, and Police Complaints Authorities at state and district levels. Statement 3 is incorrect. 'Police' and 'Public Order' are subjects listed under the State List (List II) of the Seventh Schedule, not the Concurrent List. This classification is a major reason for the challenges in implementing uniform police reforms across the country.

सही उत्तर: D

Options A, B, and C are all explicit constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Indian Constitution, protecting individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention. - Article 22(1) states that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. - Article 22(2) states that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate. Option D, the 'Right to compensation for wrongful arrest and detention,' while a recognized legal remedy and often granted by courts in cases of human rights violations, is not explicitly enshrined as a direct constitutional safeguard *against* arbitrary arrest and detention in the same manner as the rights listed in Article 22. It is a consequence or remedy rather than a preventative safeguard.

सही उत्तर: A

Assertion (A) is true. The Supreme Court has consistently acted as the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, intervening in cases of human rights violations, including custodial violence, through various mechanisms like PILs and suo motu actions. Reason (R) is true. Article 32 of the Constitution explicitly grants individuals the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights and empowers the Court to issue various writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto) for this purpose. This power is central to the Supreme Court's role as the guardian of fundamental rights. Furthermore, Reason (R) correctly explains Assertion (A) because the power conferred by Article 32 is a primary constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's ability to intervene and enforce fundamental rights, thereby acting as their guardian.