With reference to “Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment” (GECP), which of the following statements is/are correct ? 1. The Tamil Nadu School Education Department issued these guidelines on 26th April, 2024. 2. These guidelines are focussed on safeguarding the physical and mental well-being of students. Select the correct answer from the codes given below :
- (a)Only 2
- (b)Neither 1 nor 2
- (c)Only 1
- (d)Both 1 and 2
Correct — D, Both 1 and 2. Statement 1 identifies the issuing authority correctly: the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment were issued by the SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF TAMIL NADU — a State government order, not a central instrument — and they were issued in the last week of April 2024, which is the window the question's date falls in. One honest note on that date, because a student deserves it: our own sourcing places the issue of the guidelines in late April 2024 and fixes the Madras High Court's direction to the State to implement the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights' guidelines at 23 April 2024, but we could not independently pin the precise day to the 26th. The commission accepts the 26 April date and marks statement 1 correct, so treat 'Tamil Nadu School Education Department, late April 2024' as the examinable fact and do not stake anything on the exact calendar day. Statement 2 is correct without qualification: the stated purpose of the GECP is to protect students from physical punishment, mental harassment and discrimination, and so to safeguard their physical and mental well-being. The guidelines require every school to constitute a monitoring committee — typically drawing in the head of the institution, teachers, parents and senior students — to receive complaints and act on them, which is the machinery through which that purpose is meant to be delivered. Both statements standing, the answer is (d).
- (a)Only 2 — This concedes the purpose but rejects the attribution, and the attribution is right. The GECP is a Tamil Nadu School Education Department instrument issued in late April 2024; it is not a central government circular, and it is not the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights' own guidelines, although the State order was issued to give effect to those. A candidate who assumes that anything about school discipline must come from Delhi lands here.
- (b)Neither 1 nor 2 — Both statements are in fact accepted, so 'neither' fails twice over. It is the reflex option for a candidate who has never heard of the GECP at all. Statement 2 in particular is close to self-evident from the title — a set of guidelines for eliminating corporal punishment is by definition about students' physical and mental well-being — so 'neither' should have been eliminated before any recall was attempted.
- (c)Only 1 — This accepts the issuing department and date but denies the purpose, which cannot be right. The GECP exists to end physical punishment, mental harassment and discrimination in schools and to put a school-level monitoring mechanism behind that aim — its focus on the physical and mental well-being of students is the whole point of the document, not an incidental claim.
Corporal punishment in Indian schools is already prohibited by central law, and State orders like Tamil Nadu's GECP are enforcement instruments layered on top of that prohibition. Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 bars physical punishment and mental harassment of any child and makes contravention a ground for disciplinary action under the relevant service rules. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 separately penalises cruelty to a child by a person having charge of the child and corporal punishment by anyone in charge of or employed in a child care institution. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, set up under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, has issued its own guidelines for eliminating corporal punishment in schools. What was missing in practice was implementation at the school level, and that is the gap a State order with a named monitoring committee is meant to close.
Education sits in the Concurrent List, so both Parliament and the State legislatures can act on it — which is why a State department, and not only the Union government, can lawfully issue binding school guidelines. That constitutional fact is the reasoning path to statement 1: there is nothing anomalous about Tamil Nadu's School Education Department issuing the GECP, and a candidate who rejects the statement because he expects such orders to come from the centre is reasoning from a wrong premise. Statement 2 should be settled without any recall at all, from the title of the document. Note also how the item is dated: UPPSC lifts a precise day from a news report and prints it, and while the day here is one we could not verify independently, the month and the issuing body are solid — which is why the safe way to carry this into an exam is the coordinates 'Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, April 2024', with the exact date held loosely.
- The Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishment (GECP) were issued by the School Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu in late April 2024; the question's date of 26 April 2024 is the date the commission's key accepts.
- They followed a direction of the Madras High Court, dated 23 April 2024, that the State implement the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights' guidelines on eliminating corporal punishment in schools.
- Their stated aim is to end physical punishment, mental harassment and discrimination in schools and so to safeguard students' physical and mental well-being.
- They require school-level monitoring committees — bringing in the head of the institution, teachers, parents and senior students — to receive and act on complaints.
- Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 already prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment of children and makes contravention a ground for disciplinary action; the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 penalises cruelty to children and corporal punishment in child care institutions.
- Assuming school-discipline guidelines must be central. Education is in the Concurrent List, and a State department can and does issue them.
- Confusing the State's GECP with the NCPCR's own guidelines. The NCPCR issued national guidelines; the Tamil Nadu order is the State instrument implementing them.
- Over-trusting the exact day printed in a current-affairs question. Here the department, the State and the month are solid; the precise calendar date is the part press coverage does not settle cleanly.
UPPSC asks schemes and guidelines as two-statement items pairing a who-and-when statement with a what-it-is-for statement; UPSC prefers to ask which statute or constitutional provision underlies a child-rights protection. Learn both the issuing authority and the parent law.
With reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, consider the following: 1. The Right to Development 2. The Right to Expression 3. The Right to Recreation Which of the above is/are the Rights of the child?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 3 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer(d) 1, 2 and 3
The international frame the GECP sits inside — the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, whose recognition of the child as a rights-holder in development, expression and recreation is what makes freedom from physical punishment a right rather than a matter of school policy.
Consider the following statements: 1. As per the Right to Education (RTE) Act, to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a State, a person would be required to possess the minimum qualification laid down by the concerned State Council of Teacher Education. 2. As per the RTE Act, for teaching primary classes, a candidate is required to pass a Teacher Eligibility Test conducted in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education guidelines. 3. In India, more than 90% of teacher education institutions are directly under the State Governments. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 and 2
- (b) 2 only
- (c) 1 and 3
- (d) 3 only
Answer(b) 2 only
The same statute that carries the ban on corporal punishment, asked from the teacher-regulation side. Knowing that the RTE Act, 2009 regulates schools in this detail is what tells you a State education department can lawfully issue binding school-level guidelines under it.
With reference to the 'HAUSLA - 2018' which of the following statement(s) is/are correct? 1. 'HAUSLA - 2018' was organised by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India in New Delhi. 2. It was National Festival for Children of Child Care Institution. Select the correct answer from the codes given below. Codes:
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 2 only
- (c) Both 1 and 2
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer(c) Both 1 and 2
The same examinable pattern in the same child-protection space — a two-statement item where one statement names the issuing or organising authority and the other states what the initiative is for. There both statements held; here both hold too.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Which section of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment of a child?
- (a)Section 12
- (b)Section 17
- (c)Section 21
- (d)Section 29
Answer(b) Section 17 — it bars physical punishment and mental harassment of any child and makes contravention a ground for disciplinary action under the applicable service rules. Section 12 deals with the 25 per cent admission obligation of private unaided schools.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) was constituted under which of the following laws?
- (a)The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
- (b)The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005
- (c)The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
- (d)The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Answer(b) The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 — the same Act provides for State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights, and the NCPCR was later given a monitoring role under the RTE Act as well.