Human Rights and Indian Constitution Questions and Answers

Answer: C

Anticipatory bail is barred by Section 18.

Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides that section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows anticipatory bail, shall not apply to a person accused of committing an offence under the Act. Parliament later reinforced this by adding section 18A in 2018.

Section 16 deals with the power of the State Government to impose collective fines, section 20 makes the Act override other laws, and section 22 protects action taken in good faith. None of them concerns anticipatory bail.

Answer: B

The power to impose a collective fine is in Section 10 A.

Section 10A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, inserted by the amendment of 1976, empowers the State Government, if satisfied that the inhabitants of an area are concerned in or abetting the commission of untouchability offences, to impose a collective fine on them and apportion it among them.

Section 10 deals with abetment of an offence. Section 14 deals with offences by companies and section 14A with protection of action taken in good faith. None of them provides for collective fines.

Answer: D

Protection of action taken in good faith is provided in Section 14 A.

Section 14A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 bars any suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding against the Central Government, a State Government or any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under the Act.

Section 15A deals with the duty of the State Government to ensure that the rights arising from the abolition of untouchability are available to the persons concerned. Section 16A excludes the Probation of Offenders Act for persons above fourteen, and section 16B gives the power to make rules. None of them concerns good faith.

Answer: C

Offences by companies are dealt with in Section 14.

Section 14 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 provides that where an offence under the Act is committed by a company, every person who was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time is deemed guilty, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it.

Section 10 deals with abetment, section 12 with the presumption made by courts in certain cases, and section 16 makes the Act override other laws. None of them deals with offences by companies.

Answer: A

The provision is Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Section 36 sets out matters not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissions. Under Section 36(2), the National Commission or a State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting the violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. Section 36(1) bars inquiry into a matter pending before another Commission constituted under law.

Section 37 deals with the constitution of special investigation teams, Section 38 with protection of action taken in good faith, and Section 30 with Human Rights Courts.

Answer: C

The case is A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), on the key's reading.

In that habeas corpus case during the Emergency, counsel urged that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be read into the Constitution. Beg J. rejected this, saying that such arguments amount to appeals to weave ethical rules into a Constitution that is the paramount law and itself embodies the rights, and that nothing conflicting with it could be enforced under any disguise. I read this in the reported judgment; the statement is a rejection of the argument rather than a sentence announcing that the Declaration is not part of municipal law, so the match is to the case's reasoning.

The other cases point the opposite way. Maneka Gandhi widened Article 21, and Vishaka (the case spelt 'Visakha' here) used international conventions to fill a gap in Indian law. Raj Narayan v. Union of India concerned a different question altogether. Khanna J.'s dissent in A.D.M. Jabalpur did cite the Declaration's Articles 8 and 9 for interpretation, so the point is about the majority's position.

Answer: B

The case is Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v Union of India.

In this 1995 case, arising from the rape of six domestic servants by army personnel on a train, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for helping rape victims and directed the setting up of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Compensation was to be awarded by the court on conviction, and by the Board whether or not a conviction had taken place.

Vishaka (1997) laid down guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace. Chandrima Das (2000) awarded compensation to a foreign national raped by railway employees, and Nilabati Behera (1993) recognised public-law compensation for custodial death.

Answer: C

The Act was enacted in 1995.

The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 gave effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia-Pacific Region. It provided for education, employment reservations and non-discrimination, and was later replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

1975, 2000 and 2001 are not the year of this law.

Answer: C

The NHRC can inquire into complaints of both (A) and (B).

Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers the Commission to inquire, on its own motion or on a petition by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaints of violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or of negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant.

Both limbs appear in the section, so either alone is incomplete. Violations by purely private, non-state actors fall outside this function as such.

Answer: C

The Court relied on CEDAW in the Vishakha case.

In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), there was no Indian law on sexual harassment at the workplace. The Supreme Court relied on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which India had ratified, read it into Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21, and laid down the binding Vishaka guidelines until Parliament legislated, which it did in 2013.

Vineet Narain (1997) concerned the independence of the CBI, D.K. Basu (1997) laid down guidelines on arrest and custody, and Sunil Batra (1978) concerned prisoners' rights.