Explanation
- A
Only one
Only one. Two statements hold.
- B
Only two
Only two. Article 355: Union duty to protect States from internal disturbance. Preventive detention is carved out of the Article 22(1) counsel right. POTA allowed police confessions as evidence — so statement 3 is false.
- C
All three
All three. POTA’s confession clause is the opposite of statement 3.
- D
None
None. 355 and the PD counsel carve-out stand.
Summary. Official key is (b) only two. Article 355 requires the Union to protect States against internal disturbance. Article 22(3) drops the 22(1) right to counsel for preventive detention. POTA, 2002, made confessions to police admissible — so statement 3 is wrong.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.