Ethics · 31 Jul 2026

Anuradha Bhasin externment SDPI Bombay High Court

Assertion (A): The Bombay High Court quashed the externment orders against SDPI functionaries, holding that the underlying FIRs disclosed no propensity for harm. Reason (R): In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that even extraordinary preventive powers cannot be deployed to suppress legitimate expression of opinion.

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 verify a genuine causal link between a legal precedent and a judicial finding, rather than merely recognizing that both are independently true facts.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: Bombay HC Quashes Externment Orders Against SDPI Functionaries
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 31 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Bombay High Court quashed externment orders against four SDPI functionaries through 2026, questioning whether the Mumbai Police action was religiously selective ahead of the BMC elections.

Why for UPSC

This tests whether aspirants can identify a genuine, source-confirmed causal relationship between a legal reason and a judicial finding, rather than merely two unconnected true facts.

Prelims summary

The Bombay HC quashed SDPI externment orders, finding no propensity for harm in the underlying FIRs, relying explicitly on the Anuradha Bhasin (2020) precedent against using preventive powers to suppress dissent.

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.