Ethics · 7 Aug 2026

proportionate force crowd control ethics

Match List I (Element) with List II (Correct Description): List I A. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India B. Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act C. Justice M. Nagaprasanna D. Right to be forgotten List II 1. Passed the masking order directing Google and Indian Kanoon to mask the petitioner's name 2. 2017 judgment reading the right to privacy into Article 21 3. 1956, the law under which the petitioner was originally acquitted 4. Draws on the right to privacy established in the Puttaswamy judgment How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

AOnly one
BOnly two
COnly three
DAll four

Tests the ability to distinguish what Indian crowd-control law actually regulates (escalation) from what it leaves unregulated (targeting and device specification) - a nuanced ethics-and-law application skill.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

A Delhi Police crackdown on protesters at Jantar Mantar left multiple people injured after deployment of lathis, tear gas, pellet guns and shock-batons, renewing scrutiny of India's crowd control regulations.

Why for UPSC

This tests whether candidates recognise that Indian law regulates the "when" of escalating force but not the "how" of targeting or device specification - a distinction central to the ethical dilemma of proportionality.

Prelims summary

The Chemical Weapons Convention bans riot agents in warfare but allows domestic use; Anita Thakur v. J&K (2016) mandates proportionate force; Indian law regulates escalation but not device specification or targeting; 82% of examined 2016 pellet-gun victims suffered vision loss.

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.