Judicial Service Examination: Questions With Explanatory Answers Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments
Q1. Which of the following is true with respect to the decision in the 2020 judgment of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu? a. NDPS officers are not police officers since they do not file any charge-sheetb. NDPS officers are police officers but confessional statements recorded by them are admissible c. NDPS officers are police officers and therefore confessional statements...
Q1. Which of the following is true with respect to the decision in the 2020 judgment of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu?
a. NDPS officers are not police officers since they do not file any charge-sheet
b. NDPS officers are police officers but confessional statements recorded by them are admissible
c. NDPS officers are police officers and therefore confessional statements recorded by them are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
d. None of the above
Answer: c
Explanation: In Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held by 2:1 majority that officers of the Central & State agencies appointed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are police officers and therefore the 'confessional' statements recorded by them under Section 67 are not admissible.
Q2. Which of the following statements is true?
a. Anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period
b. The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order automatically ends when charges are framed
c. Life or duration of an anticipatory bail order automatically ends when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial except in special and peculiar cases.
d. Both b and c
Answer: a
Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State [NCT of Delhi] held that anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. But if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so, the five judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has held.
The Court also held that life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial except in special and peculiar cases.
Q3. Which of the following statements if true with respect to Supreme Court's recent decision in PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd?
a. Two Indian parties can choose a foreign seat of arbitration
b. Two Indian parties cannot choose a foreign seat of arbitration
c. Two Indian parties can choose a foreign seat of arbitration only with the prior consent of the government
d. None of the above
Answer: a
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that parties to a contract who are Indian nationals or Companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India.
"Nothing stands in the way of party autonomy in designating a seat of arbitration outside India even when both parties happen to be Indian nationals", the bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman observed.
Q4. In the case of Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora & Ors., the SC laid down few guidelines to curb the menace of criminalization of politics. Which of the following guideline was laid down?
a. Political Parties to update their websites with the details of candidates that have pending criminal cases
b. Submission of a report of compliance of these directions to the Election Commission (EC) within 72 hours
c. Failure in following these guidelines must enable the EC to bring a non-compliance notice against the party to the Supreme Court of India.
d. All of the above
Answer: d
Explanation: Six mandatory guidelines laid down in this case are:
- It shall be mandatory for political to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal caseswho have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
- The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere "winnability" at the polls.
- This information shall also be published in:
(a)One local vernacular newspaper and one national newspaper;
(b)On the official social media platforms of the political party, including Facebook & Twitter.
- These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
- The political party concerned shall then submit a report of compliance with these directions with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.
- If a political party fails to submit such compliance report with the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court's orders/directions.
Q5. Daughters shall have coparcenary rights irrespective of whether their father was alive when Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force. This was held in which of the following landmark judgments of the year 2020?
a. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma
b. Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnuswamy
c. Abhilasha v. Prakash & Ors –
d. None of the above
Answer: a
Explanation: In the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the SC held that a daughter will have a share after Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, irrespective of whether her father was alive or not at the time of the amendment. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra today pronounced the judgment in a batch of appeals that raised an important legal issue whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property, has a retrospective effect.
Q6. Which of the following is true as to the dictum in the landmark case of State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph?
a. Persons with Disabilities have the right to reservation in promotions
b. Persons with Disabilities have the right to reservation, but this does not extend to reservation in promotions
c. Reservation to promotion can be given to a PwD even if the person was not originally appointed in PwD quota.
d. Both a and c
Answer: d
Explanation: Supreme Court held in the aforementioned case that persons with physical disabilities have right to reservation in promotions also and that the right can be claimed even by persons who were not originally appointed in the PwD quota. A 2-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy held so dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Kerala against a judgment of the Kerala High Court.
Q7. In which of the following landmark judgments the Supreme Court quashed the RBI ban on banking services to crypto currency dealers?
a. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India
b. Common Cause v. UOI
c. Manohar Lal Sharma v. UOI
d. Rajnesh v. Neha
Answer: a
Explanation: Supreme Court Internet and Mobile Association of India vs Reserve Bank of India lifted the curbs imposed by the Reserve Bank of India on regulated entities such as banks and NBFCs from dealing with virtual currencies and from providing services to crypto businesses. The Court held that the RBI's circular, which prevented regulated entities from providing banking services to those engaged in the trading or facilitating the trading in VCs, was liable to be set aside on the "ground of proportionality".
Q8. In which of the following landmark judgments SC overruled its judgment in SR Batra v. Taruna Batra, to hold that wife entitled to claim right of residence which belongs to relatives of husband also, under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
a. Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
b. Kamlesh Devi v. UOI
c. Prabha Chander v. UOI
d. None of the above
Answer: a
Explanation: Supreme Court held that a wife is also entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household belonging to relatives of the husband. It was observed that in the event, shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household.
Q9. In Vidya Droli v. Durga Prasad Trading Enterprises, the Supreme Court of India overruling its previous decision held that:
a. landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable unless covered by specific rent control laws
b. landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable even if covered specific rent control laws
c. landlord-tenant disputes are never arbitrable
d. None of the above
Answer: a
Explanation: In judgment delivered by a three judge bench in the case of Vidya Drolia and others v Durga Trading Enterprises it was held that landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable unless covered by specific rent control laws.
The bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari overruled the view in Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia.
Q10. In the landmark case of Rajnesh v Neha, the Supreme Court observed that:
a. Maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of order for maintenance.
b. Maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance.
c. Maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date as the Magistrate deems fit
d. None of the above
Answer: b
Explanation: Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, held that the maintenance under Section 125, CrPC has to be awarded from the date of application.
Q11. The Supreme Court of India in its 2022 decision in Surendran v. State of Kerala overruled its previous judgments to hold that:
a. Dying declaration is admissible to prove charges not pertaining to death of an individual, including charge under Section 498A
b. Dying declaration is admissible only to prove charges of murder, suicide or dowry death
c. Dying declaration is admissible as evidence only when charges are framed for offences where death is an integral part of the offence
d. None of the above
Answer: a
Explanation: Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Surendran v. State of Kerela, while overruling its previous judgments, has held that evidence under Section 32(1) cannot be restricted merely to prove charges of murder, suicide or dowry death. The court in this case, while dealing with the question of admissibility of a statement under Section 32(1) to prove a charge under Section 498A, IPC held that the phrase "cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question" used in Section 32(1) is much broader than merely referring only to cases where there is a charge of murder, suicide, or dowry death. The court in this case observed that the test for admissibility under the said section is not that the evidence to be admitted should directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death of the individual.
Q12. In which of the following recent judgments, the Supreme Court developed the concept of constructive residence under the Domestic Violence Act to hold that an aggrieved person can enforce her right to reside in 'shared household' even if she has not actually lived there?
a. Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi
b. Mangat Ram v. UOI
c. Sulochna v. UOI
d. None of the above
Answer: a
Explanation: In the recent judgment of Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, the Supreme Court of India has made certain important observations with respect to scope of relief obtainable under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court observed in context of Section 17 that if a woman in a domestic relationship seeks to enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she has resided therein at all or not, then the said right can be enforced under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. The court held that, the expression 'right to reside in the shared household' would include not only actual residence but also constructive residence in the shared household i.e., right to reside in the shared household.
Q13. The power of the magistrate to compel production of voice samples of the arrested person was recognized the recent case of:
a. Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP
b. Paramvir v. CBI
c. Sneh Lata v. Push Lata
d. None of the above
Answer: a
Explanation: In Ritesh Sinha v, State of UP, it was held by the SC that a judicial magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his consent. The CJI-led bench said that in the absence of specific powers in the Code of Criminal Procedure, inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution should be invoked to confer such power on the Magistrate.
Q14. What should be unit for collecting quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation in order to determine the eligibility of a class for reservation in promotion?
a. Grade
b. Rand
c. Cadre
d. None of the above
Answer: c
Explanation: Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Other Connected Matters held that cadre should be unit for collection for quantifiable data for reservation. The collection cannot be with respect to the entire class/class/group, but it should be relatable to Grade/Category of post to which promotion is sought. Cadre should be the unit for collecting quantifiable data. it would be meaning less if collection of data is w.r.t the entire service.
Q15. The landmark decision of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union Of India deals with which of the following matters?
a. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018
b. 102nd Constitutional Amendment
c. The issue Constitutional Validity of the OROP scheme
d. None of the above
Answer: a
Explanation: Supreme Court in this case has upheld the constitutional validity of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018, which was enacted to nullify the effects of the March 20, 2018 judgment of the SC which had diluted the provisions of the Act.