By signing in you confirm you are 18 or older, or have your parent’s or guardian’s consent.

UPSC Prelims 2026 CSAT, question 39

Topic: Reading comprehension

Directions · Q39 to Q40

Directions for the next 2 (two) items :
Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers should be based solely on the passage.

Passage · Q39 to Q40

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, or the JJ Act, 2015 allows for the possibility for trying adolescents above 16 as adults if they are accused of committing a heinous offence. A heinous offence is one with a minimum punishment of seven years. Offences such as culpable homicide and causing death by negligence, which are common in drunken driving cases, are not heinous offences because they do not have a prescribed minimum punishment. The JJ Act, amended in 2021, now categorises an offence that has no minimum sentence, but has a maximum sentence of seven years or more as a serious offence which nonetheless, in the opinion of activists, does not merit the transfer of a case to the adult criminal justice system.

Q39

Which of the following conclusions is/are valid?

  1. Only a serious offence as categorised by the revised JJ Act, justifies the transfer of a case to the adult judicial system.

  2. The JJ Act, 2021, categorises an offence as a serious offence based on the maximum sentence it carries, rather than on the minimum sentence.

Select the answer using the code given below.

  1. (a) 1 only
  2. (b) 2 onlyCorrect answer
  3. (c) Both 1 and 2
  4. (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Solution.

Answer: (b) 2 only

  1. Statement 1 is incorrect: the passage states that adolescents above 16 can be tried as adults if accused of a 'heinous offence', whereas activists argue that a 'serious offence' does not merit transfer to the adult criminal justice system.
  2. Statement 2 is correct: whereas a heinous offence is defined by a minimum punishment of seven years, the 2021 amendment categorises an offence with no minimum sentence as a 'serious offence' based on its maximum sentence (seven years or more).

Trap: If Statement 2 is rejected on the strict technicality that the absence of a minimum sentence is also a precondition alongside the 7-year maximum sentence, option (d) Neither 1 nor 2 is the narrower reading.