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

AFSPA, 1958 does not restrict the disturbed area declaration to a single authority. Three separate bodies can exercise this power: the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, and the Central Government, and any of them can act depending on the situation.

1. Governor of any State: Has the power for their own State, but this alone is not the complete list of authorities.
2. Administrator of a Union Territory: Holds the equivalent power for a Union Territory, again only one part of the answer.
3. Central Government: Can also declare an area disturbed, and does so concurrently alongside State authorities in several regions today.
4. All of the above: Correctly captures that the power rests with all three simultaneously, which is exactly what the Act provides for.

So, the correct answer is All of the above.

Answer 2

Meghalaya's AFSPA period is anchored by two fixed points: it ended on 1 April 2018, and it lasted 27 years. Working backward, 2018 minus 27 years places the start of the Act's application in the State at 1991. During this period, the Act was confined to a 20-km belt along the border with Assam rather than applying to the whole State.

1. 1991: This is the year that correctly completes the 27-year span ending in 2018.
2. 1995: Would only add up to a 23-year span by 2018, too short to match the record.
3. 1999: Would give just 19 years by 2018, far short of 27.
4. 1989: Would stretch to 29 years by 2018, two years too many.

So, the correct answer is 1991.

Answer 3

Here the fastest way to the answer is to test statement (A) and statement (B) independently and see whether either one fails.

1. Testing (A): The claim that civil society and human rights groups criticise AFSPA for enabling excesses and call for checks and balances is accurate and widely recorded, so it survives the test.
2. Testing (B): The claim about Irom Chanu Sharmila's fast, from 2000 to August 2016, as a protest symbol against AFSPA also survives the test and matches the historical record.
3. Both (A) and (B) are correct: Since neither statement fails, this combined option is the one left standing.
4. None of the above: This is ruled out because it would require at least one of the statements to be inaccurate, which is not the case here.

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

Answer 4

This is a direct recall question about a specific committee, so it helps to first fix the correct name and then see why the others do not fit.

1. B. P. Jeevan Reddy: As a former Supreme Court judge, he led the five-member committee constituted in 2005 to review AFSPA, and the committee's report recommended repealing the Act and folding relevant provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, matching the description exactly.
2. Abhishek Singhvi, Soli Sorabjee and Ram Jethmalani: Each of these is a well-known legal or political figure, but none of them chaired the specific 2005 AFSPA review committee referred to in the question. Their inclusion here serves only to test whether the reader can distinguish a genuine committee head from other prominent legal names of the same era.

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

Answer 5

Rather than picking one region, it helps to check off each location named in the options one by one against where special-powers legislation currently applies.

1. Arunachal Pradesh and Assam: Covered, since the Ministry of Home Affairs continues to issue disturbed area notifications here.
2. Nagaland and Manipur: Also covered, with Nagaland notified by the MHA and Manipur notified by its own State Government.
3. Jammu and Kashmir: Covered as well, though under its own separate 1990 Act rather than the original 1958 legislation.
4. All of the above: Since every listed region checks out, this is the only option that reflects the complete current picture.

Hence, the correct answer is All of the above.