Previous Year Question
Consider the following statements:
According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances.
The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention.
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 statement(s) is/are correct?
Only one
Only two
All three
None
Correct Answer: A
Detailed Solution
Statement 1 is correct. Article 355 imposes a duty upon the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the Constitution.
Article 355 thus imposes two principal duties upon the Union:
Protecting each State against external aggression and internal disturbance.
Ensuring constitutional government in every State.
Statement 2 is incorrect. The Constitution does not describe the position as exempting the State from a duty to provide legal counsel to a preventive detainee.
Article 22(1) gives an arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice. Article 22(3), however, states that the protections under Articles 22(1) and 22(2) do not apply to a person arrested or detained under a preventive-detention law.
The distinction is important:
Article 22(1) does not impose a general obligation upon the State to provide a lawyer to every arrested person.
It protects the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of one’s choice.
This specific Fundamental Right is unavailable in preventive-detention cases.
Describing this as an exemption from providing legal counsel does not accurately state the constitutional provision.
Separate safeguards for preventive detention are contained in Articles 22(4) to 22(7), including communication of grounds, opportunity to make a representation and review by an Advisory Board in specified cases.
Statement 3 is incorrect. Section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 permitted a confession made before a police officer to be admitted in evidence subject to prescribed safeguards.
The principal safeguards included:
The confession had to be made before a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
The accused had to be informed that he or she was not bound to confess.
The officer had to be satisfied that the confession was voluntary.
The accused had to be produced before a Magistrate within the prescribed period.
POTA was repealed in 2004, but the question concerns the provisions of the 2002 Act.