Judicial Service Exams: Question And Answers (MCQs) Based On Latest Judgements- PART-1
MCQs based on Current SC Judgments- October 20231. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that mere non-cooperation with summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA Act 2002 is not sufficient to warrant arrest?A. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of IndiaB. Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay KumarC. State Bank of India & Ors v. P ZandengaD. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MPAnswer: A. Pankaj Bansal...
MCQs based on Current SC Judgments- October 2023
1. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that mere non-cooperation with summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA Act 2002 is not sufficient to warrant arrest?
A. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
B. Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar
C. State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga
D. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP
Answer: A. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844;
Explanation: In the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that mere non-cooperation with summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 is not sufficient to warrant arrest.
Mere Non-Cooperation To ED Summons Not A Ground For Arrest Under PMLA
2. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that Hindu marriages can be dissolved through a customary divorce deed if the existence of such a customary right is established?
A. ADITI ALIAS MITHI V. JITESH SHARMA
B. Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar
C. State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga
D. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP
Answer: B. Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar
Explanation: In the case of Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar, the Supreme Court ruled that Hindu marriages can be dissolved through a customary divorce deed if the existence of such a customary right is established.
3. In which case did the Supreme Court affirm the right of the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) to alienate HUF property even if a minor has an undivided interest?
A. Sunil Kumar v. Lala Saurabh Verma 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 858
B. Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866
C. Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 872
D. NS Balaji v. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 853
Answer: D. NS Balaji v. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 853
Explanation: In the case of NS Balaji v. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the Karta of an HUF to alienate HUF property even if a minor has an undivided interest.
4. In which case did the Supreme Court emphasize that 'may' in Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act should be read as 'shall'?
A. Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870
B. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 875
C. Ajeet Gurjar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 857
D. Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 880
Answer: C. Ajeet Gurjar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 857
Explanation: In the case of Ajeet Gurjar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court emphasized that 'may' in Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act should be read as 'shall' in the context of holding an inquiry on whether a child should be tried as an adult.
5. As per a recent ruling, what is the impact of acquittal in criminal proceedings on disciplinary proceedings?
A. Acquittal in criminal proceedings results in automatic discharge in disciplinary proceedings.
B. Acquittal in criminal proceedings has no impact on disciplinary proceedings.
C. Acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically disqualifies the delinquent employee.
D. Acquittal in criminal proceedings leads to suspension in disciplinary proceedings.
Answer: B. Acquittal in criminal proceedings has no impact on disciplinary proceedings.
Explanation: In the case of State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga, the Supreme Court clarified that acquittal in criminal proceedings has no impact on disciplinary proceedings, as they operate in different domains
6. What does the Fifth Schedule empower the Governor to do, as discussed in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP?
A. The Governor can repeal state laws.
B. The Governor can enact parliamentary laws.
C. The Governor can direct the non-application of parliamentary or state laws to Scheduled Areas.
D. The Governor can pass laws specific to Scheduled Areas.
Answer: C. The Governor can direct the non-application of laws to Scheduled Areas.
Explanation: The Fifth Schedule empowers the Governor to direct that parliamentary or state laws either do not apply to Scheduled Areas or apply with certain exceptions and modifications, as discussed in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP.
7. Given a recent judgment by the SC, what right does the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) have regarding HUF property?
A. The Karta can only dispose of the property if all family members agree.
B. The Karta can sell HUF property without any restrictions.
C. The Karta cannot dispose of property if a minor family member has an undivided interest.
D. The Karta can alienate HUF property even if a minor family member has an undivided interest.
Answer: D. The Karta can alienate HUF property even if a minor family member has an undivided interest.
Explanation: In the case of NS Balaji v. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, it was affirmed that the Karta of a HUF can sell or dispose of HUF property even if a minor family member has an undivided interest
8. When does Section 106 of the Evidence Act come into play for the accused?
A. When the accused is unable to prove their innocence.
B. When the prosecution fails to provide evidence.
C. When the accused fails to provide an explanation for facts within their knowledge.
D. When there is a lack of witnesses.
Answer: C. When the accused fails to explain facts within their knowledge.
Explanation: Section 106 of the Evidence Act comes into play when the accused fails to provide any explanation regarding facts that should be within their knowledge, which could support theories compatible with their innocence, as clarified in Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand.
Principles Of Applying Section 106 Of Evidence Act: Supreme Court Explains
9. In view of the recent judgment by the SC, consider the following statements regarding the validity of the will
A. Registered Wills are always valid.
B. Registration is not a requirement for Will validity.
C. The mere registration of a Will is sufficient to prove its validity.
D. The lawful execution of a Will must be proved, even if it is registered.
Answer: D. The lawful execution of a Will must be proved, even if it is registered.
Explanation: The Supreme Court in Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. v. Shiv Singh emphasized that the mere registration of a Will is not sufficient to prove its validity, and the lawful execution of the Will must be proved.
Will Can't Be Presumed To Be Valid Merely Because It Is Registered: Supreme Court
10. As per a recent pronouncement by the SC, who is deemed guilty of the offense under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act)?
A. Every person associated with the company.
B. Only the company as a legal entity.
C. The person who signs the check.
D. The person responsible for conducting the company's affairs at the time of the check's dishonor.
Answer: D. The person responsible for conducting the company's affairs at the time of the check's dishonor.
Explanation: The judgment in Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd. clarifies that only the person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company is deemed to be guilty of the offense under Section 141 of the NI Act.
11. In which case did the Supreme Court emphasize that at the stage of framing charges, the accused does not have the right to produce any material or documents to contest the case?
A. Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP
B. State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao
C. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal
D. Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana
Answer: B. State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 874
Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified this principle in the case of State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao.
Accused Has No Right To Produce Any Material At The Time Of Framing Of Charge: Supreme Court
12. In which case the Supreme Court recently directed the State or Legal Services Authorities to ensure that child victims of sexual offenses are provided with counseling by a trained child counselor or child psychologist?
A. Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP
B. State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao
C. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal
D. We the Women of India v. Union of India
Answer: D. We the Women of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 892
Explanation: This direction was given by the Supreme Court in the case of We the Women of India v. Union of India
13. In which case recently did the Supreme Court clarify the distinction between "common intention" and "common object" under Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
A. Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP
B. State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao
C. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal
D. Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana
Answer: A. Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870
Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified this distinction in the case of Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP.
14. In which case did the Supreme Court state that the state must provide 'support persons' for child victims of sexual offenses as per the POCSO Act, and that it cannot be left to parents' discretion?
A. Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP
B. State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao
C. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal
D. We the Women of India v. Union of India
Answer: D. We the Women of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 892
Explanation: This directive was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of We the Women of India v. Union of India.
15. In which case did the Supreme Court hold that the mention of the caste or religion of a party in the cause title of judgments should never be done by trial courts and high courts?
A. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal
B. Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana
C. Kamal Prasad v. State of MP
D. We the Women of India v. Union of India
Answer: A. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 875
Explanation: The Supreme Court's ruling on the mention of caste or religion in judgments was delivered in the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal.
Caste Or Religion Of Litigant Should Never Be Mentioned In Judgments: Supreme Court To All Courts
16. In which case did the Supreme Court uphold the practice of designating senior advocates and affirm the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961?
A. Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana
B. Kamal Prasad v. State of MP
C. We the Women of India v. Union of India
D. Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India
Answer: D. Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 897
Explanation: The Supreme Court's judgment upholding the practice of designating senior advocates was delivered in the case of Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India.
17. In which case did the Supreme Court refuse to grant legal recognition for queer marriages but instructed the Union of India to form a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer unions?
A. Mrs. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 926
B.Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Waqf v. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920
C. Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914
D. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Answer: D. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Explanation: The Supreme Court's decision on queer marriages and the formation of a committee was made in the case of Supriyo v. Union of India
18. According to a recent Supreme Court judgment what is the nature of a plea of alibi, and who bears the burden of proof for this plea?
a) It is part of the General Exceptions under the IPC, and the burden is on the prosecution
b) It is part of the General Exceptions under the IPC, and the burden is on the defense
c) It is a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the burden is on the person taking the plea
d) It is a rule of evidence under Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the burden is on the prosecution
Answer: c) It is a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the burden is on the person taking the plea
Explanation: In the judgment in Kamal Prasad v. State of MP, it is clarified that the plea of alibi is not a part of the General Exceptions under the IPC, and the burden to establish the plea is on the person taking such a plea by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence.
Principles Relating To Plea & Alibi & Delaying In Registering FIR: Supreme Court Explains
19. In light of a recent judgment, consider the following statements regarding notice returned as 'unclaimed'?
a) Notice returned as 'unclaimed' is not valid service.
b) Notice returned as 'unclaimed' is equivalent to 'refusal' and is considered proper service.
c) Notice returned as 'unclaimed' should be sent again.
d) Notice returned as 'unclaimed' is considered incomplete service.
Answer: b) Notice returned as 'unclaimed' is equivalent to 'refusal' and is considered proper service.
Explanation: The Supreme Court concluded that when notice is returned as 'unclaimed,' it should be deemed proper service, and the word 'refusal' can be interpreted as synonymous to 'unclaimed.'
20. Recently in the case of Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India, what issue did the Supreme Court address, and what directions did it pass?
a) The case involved environmental pollution, and the Court issued directions to control pollution.
b) The case was about workplace harassment, and the Court issued directions related to the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
c) The case dealt with property disputes, and the Court issued directions to settle property-related issues.
d) The case was about tax evasion, and the Court issued directions for stricter taxation laws.
Answer: b) The case was about workplace harassment, and the Court issued directions related to the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
Explanation: The case of Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India addressed the issue of workplace harassment and led to the issuance of directions related to the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
States/UTs Must Notify 'District Officers' Under POSH Act: Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions
21. In which case did the Supreme Court affirm that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have a right to marry as per existing statutory laws or personal laws?
a) M. Hemalatha Devi v. B. Udayasri
b) Priyanka Kumari v. Shailendra Kumar
c) Supriyo v. Union of India
d) Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India
Answer: c) Supriyo v. Union of India
Explanation: The Supreme Court affirmed the right of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry under existing laws in the case of Supriyo v. Union of India.
22. In which case did the Supreme Court declare consumer disputes as nonarbitrable and held that consumers cannot be compelled into arbitration?
a) M. Hemalatha Devi v. B. Udayasri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902
b)Union Of India v. Uzair Imran2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882
c) Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889
d) Vishal Chelani and Others v. Debashis Nanda 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 894
Answer: a) M. Hemalatha Devi v. B. Udayasri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902
Explanation: The Supreme Court, in the case of M. Hemalatha Devi v. B. Udayasri, ruled that consumer disputes are nonarbitrable, and parties cannot be compelled into arbitration just because they are signatories to an arbitration agreement.
Consumer Disputes Are Non-Arbitrable, Consumers Can't Be Compelled Into Arbitration: Supreme Court
23. In which case did the Supreme Court lay down the principles to be followed in situations with multiple dying declarations?
a) Chain Singh v. State of Chattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 895
b)Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903
c) Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 907
d) Priyanka Kumari V. Shailendra Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 904
Answer: c) Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 907
Explanation: The Supreme Court, in the case of Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi), provided principles to be followed in cases with multiple dying declarations.
Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations: Supreme Court Explains
24. In which case did the Supreme Court issue a set of directions to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)?
- Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 908
- Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India
- Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919
- Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922
Answer: b) Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 910
Explanation: The Supreme Court issued directions in the case of Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
States/UTs Must Notify 'District Officers' Under POSH Act: Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions
25 In which case did the Supreme Court rule that the conviction of the accused under Section 498A of the IPC can be upheld despite acquittal under Section 304B?
a) Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924
b) M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931
c) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
d) Pradeep Mehra V. Harijivan J. Jethwa 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 936
Answer: c) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Explanation: The Supreme Court, in the case of Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, ruled that the conviction of the accused under Section 498A of the IPC can be upheld despite an acquittal under Section 304B
26. In which case did the Supreme Court issue a set of directions to ensure the speedy disposal of civil cases and expressed concerns about case pendency in the country?
a) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916
b) Manak Chand v. State of Haryana 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937
c) Sanjay Agarwal v. State Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939
D. Sabbir(Dead) The. LRs v. Anjuman 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 933
Answer: a) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916
Explanation: The Supreme Court issued directions for the speedy disposal of civil cases in the case of Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi while expressing concerns about the backlog of cases.
Read 12 Directions Issued by Supreme Court For Speedy Trial of Civil Cases
27. In which case did the Supreme Court issue directions to the Union and State Governments to eradicate manual scavenging and increase compensation in cases of permanent disablement arising from sewer operations?
a) Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 942
b) Dr.Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917
c) Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass Thr. LRs 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 930
D. The State of Telangana & Ors. V. M/S Tirumala Constructions 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927
Answer: b) Dr.Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917
Explanation: The Supreme Court issued directions to end manual scavenging and increase compensation for permanent disablement in cases of sewer operations in the case of Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India.
28. Consider the following statements regarding the use of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the context of tenancy laws?
A) Section 5 can be used to extend time limits in all cases.
B) Section 5 can be used to extend time limits unless there is a specific time period mentioned in the relevant act.
C) Section 5 cannot be used to extend time limits when a lesser time-period is specified in the relevant act.
D) Section 5 can be used to extend time limits only for criminal cases.
Answer: C) Section 5 cannot be used to extend time limits when a lesser time-period is specified in the relevant act.
Explanation: In the case of Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, the Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be invoked to extend time limits when a lesser time period is explicitly provided under the relevant act for a particular purpose. This means that if the relevant statute prescribes a specific and shorter time limit, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be used to extend it.
29. In which case did the Supreme Court emphasize that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution and that if the trial is unnecessarily delayed for no fault of the accused, the court must exercise its power to grant bail?
A) Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited V. The State Of Maharashtra
B) Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v Hdfc Bank Ltd
C) Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
D) Pradeep Mehra V. Harijivan J. Jethwa
Answer: C) Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Explanation: In the case of Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right and the court's power to grant bail if the trial is unnecessarily delayed for no fault of the accused.
If Trial Is Delayed For No Fault Of Accused, Courts Must Consider Grant Of Bail: Supreme Court
30. Recently, the Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable if:
a) New grounds are raised.
b) The first petition was dismissed.
c) Grounds were available during the filing of the first petition.
d) The accused is not present during the hearing.
Answer: c) Grounds were available during the filing of the first petition.
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable if the grounds were available during the filing of the first petition.
31. According to the Supreme Court in Pradeep Mehra V. Harijivan J. Jethwa recently, what is the limitation of the Executing Court under Section 47 CPC?
a) The Executing Court can inquire into any matter related to the suit.
b) The Executing Court can only consider questions related to the execution of the decree.
c) The Executing Court can revisit and modify the decree.
d) The Executing Court has unlimited jurisdiction.
Answer: b) The Executing Court can only consider questions related to the execution of the decree.
Explanation: The Supreme Court ruled that the Executing Court, under Section 47 CPC, can only consider questions limited to the execution of the decree and cannot go behind the decree
32. In which case did the Supreme Court recently hold that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and rejection is only permissible when the plaint does not disclose a cause of action?
- Union of India & Ors v Dilip Paul 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 959
- Manjunath v. State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 961
- Kum Geetha v. Nanjunaswamy 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940
- Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 935
Answer- c) Kum Geetha v. Nanjunaswamy 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (31.10.2023) held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also reiterated that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
Plaint Cannot Be Rejected In Part Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Supreme Court
33. Recently, in which case the Supreme Court directed the States and the Union to fill up vacancies in Information Commissions across the country to prevent the RTI Act from becoming a 'dead letter.?
- Binu Tamta v. HC of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 969
- Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 942
- Sajeev v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 974
- Vishnubhai Ganpatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 955
Answer- b) Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 942
The Supreme Court today (October 30) expressed its dissatisfaction with the failure of States and the Union to fill up the vacancies of Information Commissions across the country. The court directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to prepare a chart on the number of vacancies and number of appeals/complaints in all the commissions.