Ethics · 22 Aug 2026

magisterial inquiry encounter deaths

Assertion (A): A magisterial inquiry into the deaths of the three men in the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary encounter is legally mandatory.
Reason (R): Under Section 176 of the CrPC / Section 196 of the BNSS, a magisterial inquiry is required whenever a death occurs during an encounter with police or forest enforcement personnel, regardless of whether the official account of the encounter is later disputed.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above 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
This question is based on: Three Shots or a Full Magazine? What the Hanur Encounter Actually Tests
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 22 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

A magisterial inquiry is underway into the killing of three men by Karnataka Forest Department guards, after forensic findings of close-range firing from a single gun appeared to contradict the department's official account of three warning shots fired from a distance, while the sole surviving witness has gone missing.

Why for UPSC

UPSC's Ethics paper frequently probes institutional accountability mechanisms that apply regardless of a case's specific facts - this question tests whether the aspirant knows the mandatory legal trigger for a magisterial inquiry, separate from the ethical dilemma of the guard's split-second decision.

Prelims summary

A magisterial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC / Section 196 BNSS is mandatory for any death during police or state enforcement action; it functions as an independent institutional check that operates automatically, especially where forensic evidence contradicts an official account, as in the Hanur encounter.

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.