Answer: B

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct: The May 19–20, 2026 summit in Beijing marked the 25th anniversary of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation (initially signed in 2001), underscoring the longevity and depth of their bilateral relationship.

Statement 2 is incorrect: The "no-limits partnership" was declared much more recently, specifically in February 2022, right before the outbreak of the Ukraine war. It did not originate from the 1960s Sino-Soviet split.

Statement 3 is correct: Following heavy economic sanctions from the West, Russia's trade orientation has heavily shifted toward Asia. By 2025, approximately 32% of Russia's total trade was with China, highlighting Beijing's role as Russia's primary economic lifeline and primary supplier of machinery, vehicles, and electronics.

Answer: C

Explanation:

Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court has not permanently lifted the nationwide stay it imposed in May 2022. The 2022 order directed that no fresh FIRs be registered and all proceedings be kept in abeyance. The recent ruling only provides a case-specific exception rather than revoking the blanket stay.

Statement 2 is correct: The Court modified its 2022 interim order to introduce an exception based on the consent of the accused. It clarified that if an accused person voluntarily agrees and explicitly has no objection to their case being cleared on merits, courts can proceed with the trial or appeal without any legal impediment.

Statement 3 is correct: This clarification was primarily driven by the predicament of individuals who had been imprisoned for long periods (e.g., in a case involving an accused in jail for 17 years) and sought speedy disposal of their pending appeals on merits rather than keeping them paused indefinitely.

Answer: B

Explanation:

Statement 1 is incorrect: In the landmark Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but interpreted it very narrowly. The Court held that criticism of the government does not amount to sedition unless there is a clear intention or tendency to create public disorder, or an incitement to violence.

Statement 2 is correct: Under the Indian Penal Code, Section 124A classifies sedition as a cognizable offence (meaning the police can arrest the accused without a warrant) and a non-bailable offence.

Statement 3 is incorrect: The Supreme Court did not declare sedition unconstitutional in the Kedar Nath Singh case. Instead, the Court upheld its validity precisely by interpreting it in a way that aligns with Article 19(2) (Reasonable Restrictions) of the Constitution.

Answer: B

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct: The UNGA resolution, spearheaded by Vanuatu, urges countries to comply with climate obligations based on the landmark ICJ advisory opinion. The ICJ ruled unanimously that states have explicit legal obligations under international law to protect the climate system from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

Statement 2 is incorrect: While ICJ judgments in contentious cases between sovereign states are legally binding, advisory opinions rendered by the ICJ to UN organs and agencies are non-binding. However, these opinions carry tremendous moral and legal authority and shape international environmental law.

Statement 3 is correct: India abstained from voting on this resolution. India's core concern was that the resolution sought to elevate a non-binding ICJ advisory opinion to a quasi-binding status, which could impose external, non-negotiated obligations on developing countries and subject domestic targets (NDCs) to international judicial scrutiny. India emphasized that climate obligations should only arise from negotiations under the UNFCCC framework.

Answer: C

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 34(1) of the ICJ Statute, only states (or sovereign entities) can be parties in contentious cases before the Court. This means private individuals, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations, and international organizations cannot bring a case to the ICJ or be a party in these disputes.

Statement 2 is correct: The ICJ performs two main functions: resolving legal disputes between states (Contentious Cases) and giving Advisory Opinions. Under Article 96 of the UN Charter, Advisory Opinions can be requested by the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, and other authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. These opinions are non-binding but carry immense legal weight.

Statement 3 is incorrect: ICJ judgments are indeed legally binding on the involved parties. However, there is no automatic enforcement mechanism. If a state fails to comply with an ICJ judgment, the other party may take the matter to the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC may make recommendations or decide upon measures to enforce the judgment. However, this is not an automatic or guaranteed process, and it can be blocked by the veto power of any permanent UNSC member.

Statement 4 is correct: According to Article 93(1) of the UN Charter, all 193 member states of the United Nations are automatically (ipso facto) parties to the ICJ Statute. States that are not UN members can also become parties to the Statute under conditions determined by the UNGA and UNSC.