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.