Consider the following statements: 1. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances. 2. The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention. 3. 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?
Contents17
- AOnly one
- BOnly two
- CAll three
- DNone
Show answer
Answer: (A) Only one
Statement 1 is correct:
Article 355 says the Union must protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance.
Statement 2 is wrong:
Under Article 22(5), a person detained under preventive detention MUST be told the grounds for detention and given a chance to make a representation — so legal remedies ARE available.
Statement 3 is wrong:
Under POTA (2002, now repealed), confessions made to a police officer of SP rank or above WERE admissible in court.
Only one is correct.
Answer is (a).
Article 355 creates the Union's duty to protect states from internal disturbance, while Article 22 guarantees procedural safeguards even in preventive detention cases.
POTA 2002 was a major anti-terrorism law that allowed confessions to senior police officers as evidence, unlike normal criminal law which prohibits police confessions.
The question tests whether students can distinguish between different legal frameworks - constitutional duties, fundamental rights protections, and special terrorism legislation.
Article 355: Union's Duty to Protect States
Indian Polity Article 355 internal disturbances Central Government
Article 355: Union's Constitutional Duty to Protect States
Article 355 mandates Union to protect every state from external aggression and internal disturbance
This duty is absolute — Union cannot refuse protection to any state
Article 355 forms the constitutional basis for President's Rule under Article 356
Article 355 creates a fundamental obligation on the Union government to safeguard states. This provision ensures no state is left defenseless against threats that exceed its capacity to handle.
Article 355 Provisions
Protection Type | Union's Duty | When Applied |
|---|---|---|
External Aggression | Military defense, border security | War, invasion, cross-border terrorism |
Internal Disturbance | Central forces, financial aid | Communal riots, insurgency, law & order breakdown |
Constitutional Significance
Article 355 is a unilateral duty — states cannot refuse Union's help
Union can act suo moto without state government's request
This article justifies deployment of Central Armed Forces in states
Forms legal foundation for Article 356 (President's Rule) when state machinery fails
Trap: Internal disturbance is covered — many think Article 355 only covers external aggression
Trap: Union's duty is mandatory, not discretionary — 'may protect' vs 'shall protect'
Confusion: Article 355 ≠ Article 356. 355 is duty to protect, 356 is President's Rule
Article 22: Rights of Detained Persons
Indian Polity Article 22 preventive detention legal counsel
Article 22: Constitutional Safeguards for Detained Persons
Article 22(1) guarantees right to be informed of grounds of arrest
Article 22(2) provides right to legal counsel and defense
Article 22(5) mandates grounds must be communicated in preventive detention
These rights apply to both regular arrest and preventive detention
Article 22 provides crucial safeguards against arbitrary detention. Even in preventive detention cases, the Constitution ensures basic procedural rights to protect individual liberty.
Article 22 Rights Breakdown
Clause | Right Guaranteed | Applies To |
|---|---|---|
22(1) | Right to know grounds of arrest | All arrests |
22(2) | Right to legal counsel & defense | All arrests |
22(3) | Production before magistrate within 24 hours | Regular arrests only |
22(5) | Right to know grounds & make representation | Preventive detention |
Preventive Detention Specifics
Article 22(4) allows Parliament to make laws for preventive detention
Article 22(5) ensures detained person gets grounds as soon as may be
Article 22(7) provides for Advisory Boards to review detention cases
Maximum detention: 3 months without Advisory Board approval
Trap: Article 22(5) guarantees rights even in preventive detention — not exempted
Trap: Article 22(3) (24-hour rule) does NOT apply to preventive detention
Confusion: Legal counsel right exists under 22(2) — states cannot deny it
POTA 2002: Confession & Evidence Rules
Indian Polity Prevention of Terrorism Act confession police evidence
POTA 2002: Controversial Confession Provisions (Repealed)
POTA 2002 allowed confessions to police officers of SP rank and above as evidence
This was a major departure from normal criminal law where police confessions are inadmissible
POTA was repealed in 2004 due to widespread criticism and misuse
POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002) introduced controversial provisions that relaxed normal evidence rules. The law allowed confessions made to senior police officers to be used in court — breaking the fundamental principle that police confessions are unreliable.
Confession Rules Comparison
Law | Confession To | Admissible in Court | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
Normal Criminal Law | Police officer | No | Risk of coercion, torture |
POTA 2002 | Police officer (SP+) | Yes | Terrorism cases need special rules |
Current Law | Judicial magistrate | Yes | Independent authority reduces coercion |
Why POTA Was Controversial
Section 32 of POTA made confessions to police admissible evidence
Required confession to officer of Superintendent rank or above
Critics argued it violated Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination)
Widespread misuse led to targeting of minorities and political opponents
Current Anti-Terror Law
UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) replaced POTA
UAPA does not allow police confessions as evidence
Follows normal criminal procedure — confession only to judicial magistrate
Trap: POTA allowed police confessions — opposite of normal criminal law
Trap: POTA is repealed — questions may test it as historical knowledge
Confusion: UAPA ≠ POTA — current anti-terror law does not allow police confessions
Centre-State Constitutional Relations
Indian Polity
Centre-State Relations: Constitutional Framework & Key Provisions
Article 355 creates Union's duty to protect states from aggression and disturbance
Article 356 allows President's Rule when constitutional machinery fails
Article 352 provides for National Emergency affecting Centre-State balance
Article 360 covers Financial Emergency provisions
Constitutional Provisions
# Centre-State Relations
## Normal Times
- Article 355 - Duty to protect
- Article 356 - President's Rule
- Lists in 7th Schedule
## Emergency Powers
- Article 352 - National Emergency
- Article 356 - State Emergency
- Article 360 - Financial Emergency
## Coordination
- Article 263 - Inter-State Council
- Article 280 - Finance Commission
- Article 368 - Amendment ProcessEmergency Provisions Impact
Emergency Type | Article | Effect on States | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
National Emergency | 352 | State autonomy reduced, Union List expands | 6 months (renewable) |
President's Rule | 356 | State government suspended, Governor acts | 6 months (max 3 years) |
Financial Emergency | 360 | Union controls state finances | Until revoked |
Trap: Article 355 is Union's duty — not discretionary power
Confusion: Article 355 ≠ 356 — protection duty vs President's Rule
Trap: President's Rule can last maximum 3 years with Parliament approval
Fundamental Rights: Detention Safeguards
Indian Polity
Constitutional Safeguards Against Arbitrary Detention
Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty — basis for detention safeguards
Article 22 provides specific rights for arrested and detained persons
Article 20 prohibits ex-post-facto laws and double jeopardy
Arrest to Trial Process
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`****Arrest****
Article 22(1) - Right to know grounds`"]
s2["`****Legal Aid****
Article 22(2) - Right to counsel and defense`"]
s3["`****Magistrate****
Article 22(3) - Production within 24 hours`"]
s4["`****Trial****
Article 20 - Protection against self-incrimination`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4Types of Detention
Detention Type | Purpose | Key Safeguards | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
Punitive | After conviction | Regular criminal procedure | Imprisonment after trial |
Preventive | To prevent future crime | Article 22(4-7) safeguards | NSA, UAPA detention |
Curative | Treatment/reform | Medical/judicial oversight | Mental health cases |
Supreme Court Interventions
Maneka Gandhi case (1978) expanded Article 21 to include due process
DK Basu guidelines for arrest and detention procedures
Preventive detention laws regularly challenged for constitutional validity
Article 32 allows direct Supreme Court petition for detention cases
Trap: Article 22(3) (24-hour rule) does NOT apply to preventive detention
Trap: Preventive detention still has safeguards under Article 22(5)
Confusion: Article 20(3) vs Article 22 — self-incrimination vs detention rights