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. 1999
• C. 1991
• 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 mainstream.
• B. 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.
• 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

Check whether the power described in the question sits with just one authority or with several at once.

1. The 1972 amendment to AFSPA specifically created a concurrent power, meaning more than one authority can exercise it independently.
2. The Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, and the Central Government were each separately named as holders of this power.
3. Since none of the first three options alone covers all three authorities, picking just one of them would understate the legal position.

The correct option is All of the above.

Answer 2

Think of this as a completeness test rather than a pick-one question, does any single option, on its own, fully answer "who can declare a disturbed area"?

1. Governor of any State: covers State-level declarations only.
2. Administrator of a Union Territory: covers Union Territory-level declarations only.
3. Central Government: covers the national-level declarations only.
4. All of the above: covers all three levels at once, which is exactly what the 1972 amendment intended by making the power concurrent.

Since the law names three separate holders of this power and no single option lists all three, the complete option is the right one.

The correct answer is All of the above.

Answer 3

Rather than recalling the date directly, use the other fact given, AFSPA stayed in force in Meghalaya for 27 years before being revoked on 1 April 2018.

\[ 2018 - 27 = 1991 \]

That arithmetic points straight at 1991, matching one option and ruling out 1995, 1999 and 1989.

The correct option is 1991.

Answer 4

Group the four years by decade position and see which one lines up with independently known history of AFSPA in the Northeast.

1. 1989: just before the year Meghalaya is recorded as coming under the Act.
2. 1991: the year historical records mark AFSPA's extension to Meghalaya.
3. 1995 and 1999: both fall well after that, inside the period when Meghalaya was already under the Act, not the year it began.

Only one of the four years actually marks the starting point rather than a year during or after the Act was already in force.

The correct answer is 1991.

Answer 5

Test each statement on its own, independent of the other, before deciding on the combined options.

1. Statement (A): human rights organisations and civil-society groups have argued for decades that AFSPA's powers need stronger checks and balances. True.
2. Statement (B): Irom Chanu Sharmila of Manipur is a documented historical figure who fasted from 2000 to August 2016 in protest against AFSPA. True.

Since both individual statements pass the check, the only option that fits is the one saying both are correct, which also rules out "None of the above."

The correct option is Both (A) and (B) are correct.

Answer 6

Notice the two statements are about different kinds of facts, (A) is a general claim about how human rights groups view AFSPA, while (B) is a specific claim about one named individual's protest. Testing each against its own kind of evidence confirms both independently.

1. Statement (A): confirmed by decades of public record, parliamentary debate, and civil-society reporting on AFSPA's effects.
2. Statement (B): confirmed by news coverage of Irom Sharmila's fast, which ran from 2000 until she ended it in August 2016.
3. Because these are two separate, independently verifiable claims and both hold up, the option combining them is the accurate one.
4. "None of the above" would require both to be false, which the record does not support.

The correct answer is Both (A) and (B) are correct.

Answer 7

The question gives two identifying details, a five-member committee, formed in 2005, that recommended repealing AFSPA and strengthening the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act instead. Match a name to that exact profile.

1. Abhishek Singhvi and Ram Jethmalani: neither is on record as chairing any government committee matching this description.
2. Soli Sorabjee: associated with a different reform panel, on policing, not this one.
3. B. P. Jeevan Reddy: the justice on record as heading exactly this 2005 five-member AFSPA review committee.

The correct option is B. P. Jeevan Reddy.

Answer 8

Split the four names by background, which ones are former judges, and which are lawyer-politicians?

1. Abhishek Singhvi and Ram Jethmalani: both are lawyer-politicians rather than judges who headed a formal government review committee of this kind.
2. Soli Sorabjee: a former Attorney General, closer to a judicial-legal role, but linked to a separate reform committee on policing.
3. B. P. Jeevan Reddy: a former judge, and the one specifically tasked by the government in 2005 with reviewing AFSPA.

Government review committees on a law as sensitive as AFSPA are typically headed by a judicial figure, and the specific one from 2005 was Jeevan Reddy.

The correct answer is B. P. Jeevan Reddy.

Answer 9

Ask whether the three region-groups listed are mutually exclusive alternatives or simply three true facts that can all hold at once.

1. Parts of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam remain under the 1958 Act's disturbed-area notification.
2. Nagaland and Manipur are likewise still under active notifications.
3. Jammu and Kashmir has its own 1990 Act functioning in a similar way.

None of these facts contradicts the others, all three are simultaneously true, so the option combining them is the accurate one.

The correct option is All of the above.

Answer 10

Separate the four options into two legal buckets, places under the original 1958 AFSPA, and places under a separate law.

1. Arunachal Pradesh and Assam: under the 1958 Act.
2. Nagaland and Manipur: also under the 1958 Act.
3. Jammu and Kashmir: under its own dedicated 1990 Act, not the 1958 one, but carrying the same kind of special powers.
4. All of the above: the only option that accounts for both buckets together.

Since AFSPA-type powers are currently active across every one of these regions, whichever Act governs them, the complete option is correct.

The correct answer is All of the above.