Ethics · 15 Jul 2026

Vaishno Devi silver offerings fraud FIR

With reference to the recent allegations of fraud in silver offerings at the Vaishno Devi shrine, consider the following statements:

  1. The complaint alleged that of roughly 20 tonnes of silver offerings sent for melting and testing, only 5-6 per cent turned out to be genuine silver.
  2. The Jammu court summoned a Crime Branch officer because the complaint had been forwarded administratively rather than registered as an FIR.
  3. In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013), the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory once information discloses a cognizable offence, leaving no room for a preliminary administrative detour.

How many of the statements given above are correct?

AOnly one
BOnly two
CAll three
DNone
This question is based on: Vaishno Devi's Rs 500-Crore Silver Puzzle: When a Sacred Trust Needs a Court Order to Investigate Itself
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 15 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

A Jammu court summoned a J&K Police Crime Branch officer after finding that a fraud complaint involving Vaishno Devi's silver offerings, worth an estimated Rs 500-550 crore, had only been administratively forwarded rather than registered as an FIR.

Why for UPSC

This format tests whether aspirants can correctly recall both the specific facts of a current case and the applicable landmark judgment governing mandatory FIR registration - a frequently tested criminal procedure principle.

Prelims summary

Only 5-6% of ~20 tonnes of "silver" offerings at Vaishno Devi tested as genuine; the Crime Branch's mere administrative forwarding (not FIR registration) violated the mandatory-FIR standard set in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013).

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.