With reference to India, consider the following pairs :
| Action | The Act under which it is covered |
|---|---|
| 1. Unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms | The Official Secrets Act, 1923 |
| 2. Knowingly misleading or otherwise interfering with a police officer or military officer when engaged in their duties | The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 |
| 3. Celebratory gunfire which can endanger the personal safety of others | The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 |
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
Show answer
Answer: B. Pair 1 is correct: Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 punishes unauthorised use of uniforms. Pair 2 is wrong: interfering with police or military officers is covered by Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, not the Evidence Act. Pair 3 is correct: the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 made celebratory gunfire that endangers others an offence. So only two.
Watch for: The Evidence Act sounds legal and serious, but it only governs evidence in trials.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Wrong because pairs 1 and 3 are correct.
- C. Wrong because the Evidence Act deals with proof in court, not interference with officers.
- D. Wrong because pairs 1 and 3 are correctly matched.
Source to check: Official Secrets Act, 1923, Sections 6 and 7; Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, Section 25(9)
Answer from the official UPSC key. Written and fact-checked by AI against the official key. Spotted a mistake? Report it.