Which of the following is a non-constitutional body of India?

The correct answer is A, three years. The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 reduced the term of the Chairperson and the members of the Commission from five years to three years, or until they attain the age of seventy, whichever is earlier, and it also made them eligible for reappointment. Option C, five years, was the correct answer before the 2019 amendment and is the commonest trap in this question, because older notes still carry that figure. Options B and D, four and six years, have never been the term of this office; six years is associated with other posts such as a Rajya Sabha member's term, and four years with none of the rights commissions. Remember the pair: three years for the office, seventy as the age ceiling for the Chairperson.

The correct answer is B, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Act began life as an ordinance in September 1993, and the Commission was constituted on 12 October 1993 with Justice Ranganath Misra, a former Chief Justice of India, as its first Chairperson. Option A is wrong because there is no Human Rights Commission Act of 1991; that year is remembered only for the Paris workshop that drew up the Paris Principles. Option C is wrong because the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 is the renamed Untouchability (Offences) Act and punishes the practice of untouchability; it creates no commission. Option D is wrong because the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is the law under which the government appoints a one-off commission of inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, such as a riot or a disaster.

The correct answer is B, 12 October, the date on which the Commission was constituted in 1993. Option A, 10 December, is Human Rights Day, which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948; students confuse the two dates constantly, so fix the pair in memory. Option C, 26 November, is Constitution Day, the day the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution in 1949. Option D, 28 September, is close to the date of the ordinance that preceded the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, but it is not the day the Commission came into being. The safe way to hold this fact is the chain: Declaration in 1948 on 10 December, Paris Principles in 1991, Act and Commission in 1993 on 12 October.

The correct answer is C, the Prime Minister. The selection committee has six members: the Prime Minister as its head, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and the Union Home Minister; the President then makes the appointment on its recommendation. Option A is wrong, though the Chief Justice of India must be consulted when a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting Chief Justice of a High Court is to be appointed. Option B is wrong because the President appoints but does not recommend; the same pattern appears in the appointment of the Lokpal and the Central Information Commissioner. Option D is wrong because the Union Home Minister is only a member of the committee, not its head.

The correct answer is B, one year. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 bars the Commission from inquiring into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting the violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. Option A, six months, is the limit students wrongly carry over from service rules and departmental appeals. Options C and D, two and three years, are longer than the statute allows; three years is the ordinary period of limitation for a civil suit under the Limitation Act, 1963, which is a different idea altogether. Pair this one-year bar with the Commission's other two limits that examiners like: its findings are only recommendations, and on the armed forces it may do no more than seek a report from the Central Government.