Polity · 25 Jul 2026

BNSS Section 163

Consider the following statements:

  1. Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is the direct successor to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  2. In the Ramlila Maidan case (2012), the Supreme Court held that police must use the "least invasive" method available before escalating force against an assembly.
  3. In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that public spaces can be occupied indefinitely if the occupation is for the purpose of protest.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A1 and 2 only
B2 and 3 only
C1 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3

Tests the ability to detect a reversed case holding used as a distractor, rather than simple recall of case names.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: The Court Has a Phrase for This. It Just Never Says When It Applies.
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 25 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

Clashes at Jantar Mantar after Delhi Police invoked BNSS Section 163 prohibitory orders have reopened debate on whether the "least invasive" standard functions as a real operational constraint or only a retrospective judicial test.

Why for UPSC

UPSC frequently tests whether aspirants have accurately internalised the actual holding of landmark cases rather than a plausible-sounding but reversed version of it - Amit Sahni is a favourite target for exactly this trap.

Prelims summary

BNSS Section 163 succeeds CrPC Section 144; Ramlila Maidan (2012) mandates least-invasive policing; Amit Sahni (2020) actually held that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely, even for protest.

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.