The first class Judicial Magistrates have been empowered to hold special courts for the trial of offences under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. In Uttar Pradesh, in each district, the Courts of Chief Judicial Magistrates/Judicial Magistrates have been designated as a Special Court for the trial of offences under the Act.

If case of any offence committed by companies under the Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955, the person responsible for the company affairs at the time of the incident, whether Director, Manager or Secretary shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be prosecuted against and punished accordingly.

MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act) Act was enacted in 1971 and was repealed in 1977. This Act was enacted for the maintenance of internal security. Thus it is not a Social Act, while the other three mentioned Acts were enacted for prevention of social evils.

In 1871, the British Government passed an Act, commonly known as Criminal Tribes Act. It was enacted for the first time in India and was enforced in the Northern part of India which was later extended to the region of Bengal.

According to Section 23(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Central Government may, by notification in official Gazette make rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act.

Whoever being a public servant, commits any offence under section 3. of the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year.

The Special Court cannot exercise power to impose collective fines under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) provisions to provide institutions of local self-governance to recognize the traditional rights of the tribals and to free them from exploitations. Option (c) is incorrect as the Act does not have any provision for creating any autonomous regions.

Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India is related to Right to Information Act, 2005.

A division bench of Madras High Court comprising Justices N. Paul Vasanthakumar and K. Ravichandrababu said "an applicant must disclose the object for which the information is sought and also satisfy that such object has a legal backing," a decision which may have far reaching implications on getting information under the RTI Act. But any such obligations is not mentioned in Right to Information Act, 2005.