Ethics · 16 Jul 2026

minimum force doctrine proportionality

Assertion (A): At Senapati, Assam Rifles personnel used only blank cartridges and tear gas to disperse a mob that had torched and overturned security vehicles. Reason (R): The Supreme Court's 2016 EEVFAM judgment held that even in AFSPA-designated disturbed areas, armed forces must use force that is proportional to the actual threat faced. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above two statements?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to correctly identify whether a legal precedent functions as the genuine explanatory cause of an actor's real-world conduct, rather than merely a coincidentally related fact - a judgement-linking skill central to ethics case analysis.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

A mob attacked an Assam Rifles camp in Manipur's Senapati district on July 14, 2026, torching vehicles after a counter-insurgency search operation, with the force using only non-lethal measures to disperse the crowd.

Why for UPSC

UPSC's 2025 GS4 case study on a Maoist-area mob confrontation shows direct thematic continuity; this assertion-reasoning format tests whether aspirants correctly link the legal proportionality standard (EEVFAM) to the security force's actual real-world restraint, rather than treating them as coincidentally related facts.

Prelims summary

The Assam Rifles' restrained, non-lethal response at Senapati was directly governed by the Supreme Court's 2016 EEVFAM judgment, which mandates proportional, minimum force even in AFSPA-designated disturbed areas.

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.