Ethics · 21 Aug 2026

National Security Act protest bail individualised evidence

Consider the following statements regarding the bail orders following the April 2026 Noida protest crackdown:

  1. The National Security Act permits preventive detention without trial for up to 12 months.
  2. Courts held that mere presence in a protesting crowd is by itself sufficient evidence of criminal intent to deny bail.
  3. Bail was denied in cases where the prosecution presented prima facie material showing organising, conspiracy or instigation.
AOnly one
BOnly two
CAll three
DNone
This question is based on: 84% Got Bail. The 16% Who Didn't Tell You What the State Actually Had to Prove
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 21 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

Following a police crackdown on April 2026 Noida wage protests, courts granted bail in 84% of 222 orders across seven FIRs, holding that mere presence in a crowd is not evidence of criminal intent, while two individuals remained detained under the NSA.

Why for UPSC

This tests whether aspirants can distinguish the general evidentiary principle courts applied (mere presence insufficient) from the narrower exception where bail was actually denied (specific organising evidence) - a nuance UPSC often probes in ethics/polity crossover questions on state power.

Prelims summary

Courts granted bail in 84% of 222 orders after the April 2026 Noida protests, holding mere crowd presence is not evidence of criminal intent; bail was denied only where prima facie evidence showed organising or instigation. Two individuals were separately detained under the NSA, which allows detention without trial for up to 12 months.

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.