Comprehension : Comprehension

Q 3 / 466

UPSC CSE Prelims 2026

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers should be based solely on the passage.
Passage: The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, or the JJ Act, 2015 allows for the possibility of 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.
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.

EXPLANATION

The correct option is B - 2 only.

[as per provisional answerkey]

Why this is correct

The passage explicitly states that the JJ Act, amended in 2021, now categorizes an offence that has "no minimum sentence, but has a maximum sentence of seven years or more" as a serious offence. This confirms that for this specific category (serious offences), the classification is indeed based on the maximum sentence rather than the minimum sentence. Therefore, Statement 2 is a valid conclusion derived directly from the text.

Why the other options are incorrect

  • Statement 1 - Only a serious offence justifies the transfer: This is incorrect because the passage states that adolescents can be tried as adults if they commit a heinous offence (minimum punishment of 7 years). Furthermore, the passage mentions that activists believe "serious offences" do not merit transfer to the adult system. Thus, the "only" qualifier is factually reversed and logically unsupported.
  • Option (a) - 1 only: This is incorrect because Statement 1 contradicts the passage's definition of heinous offences and the criteria for adult trial transfers.
  • Option (c) - Both 1 and 2: This is incorrect because while Statement 2 is valid, Statement 1 is logically flawed and contradicts the information provided about heinous offences.
  • Option (d) - Neither 1 nor 2: This is incorrect because Statement 2 is a factually accurate reflection of the 2021 amendment described in the passage.

Key Concept

The distinction between "heinous" and "serious" offences based on statutory sentencing thresholds (minimum vs. maximum) and the identification of specific criteria for adult judicial transfer.