Judicial Service Exams: Question And Answers(MCQs) Based On Latest Legal Developments(2)

(a) 101

(b) 102

(c) 103

(d) 104

Ans.: (c)

[103rd Constitutional Amendment provides 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment]

2. In which of the following cases Supreme Court has recently upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment?

(a) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

(b) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India

(c) Sunil Kumar vs State of Bihar

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (b)

[In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.]

3. Who among the following Judges wrote the minority Judgement in the EWS Case holding that the 103^rd Amendment to the Constitution– by excluding backward classes – is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution?

(a) Justice Bela Trivedi

(b) Justice Ravindra Bhat

(c) Justice JB Pardiwala

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (b)

4. Who among the following Judges observed in the EWS judgement that, 'at the end of seventy-five years of our independence, we need to revisit the system of reservation in the larger interest of the society as a whole, as a step forward towards transformative constitutionalism'?

(a) Justice Bela Trivedi

(b) Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

(c) Justice Pardiwala

(d) Justice UU Lalit

Ans.: (a)

5. Who among the following Judges observed in the EWS judgement that "this court has for the first time, in the seven decades of the republic, sanctioned an avowedly exclusionary and discriminatory principle"?

(a) Justice Bela Trivedi

(b) Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

(c) Justice JB Pardiwala

(d) Justice UU Lalit

Ans.: (b)

6.Who among the following Chief Justice/s of India took a minority view in a Constitution Bench Judgement?

(a) Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar

(b) Justice Dipak Mishra

(c) Justice UU Lalit

(d) (a) and (c)

Ans.: (d)

7. In which of the following cases Justice UU Lalit took a minority view during his period as Chief Justice of India?

(a) Triple Talaq Case

(b) EWS Quota Case

(c) Aadhaar Case

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (b)

[In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. Then CJI UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat were in dissent.]

8. In which of the following cases Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar took a minority view during his period as Chief Justice of India

(a) Triple Talaq Case

(b) EWS Quota Case

(c) Aadhaar Case

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (a) Triple Talaq Case

[In Shayara Bano v. Union of India, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional by 3:2 majority. Justices Kurian Joseph, UU Lalit and RF Nariman delivered the majority Judgment. Then CJI Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented.]

9. Who among the following former Judges has been appointed by the Supreme Court to head the Committee to enquire into the security lapse which happened during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab on January 5, 2022?

(a) Justice RV Ravindran

(b) Justice Indu Malhotra

(c) Justice Vineet Saran

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (b)

[ In Lawyers Voice Vs State of Punjab, Supreme Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra to head the Committee to enquire into the security lapse which happened during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab on January 5. The Court opined that the "questions cannot be left to one-sided enquiry" and a judicially trained mind needs to oversee the probe. The Director-General of the National Investigation Agency or his nominee not below the rank of IG, Director General of Police of Union Territory of Chandigarh, ADGP (Security) of Punjab and the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (who has seized the records relating to PM's visit) are the other members of the Committee]

10. In which of the following cases the Supreme Court expanded the definition of "Vulnerable Witnesses"?

(a) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra

(b) State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal

(c) Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (a)

[In Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra, Supreme Court clarified that the definition of vulnerable witnesses contained in clause 3 of the VWDC (vulnerable witness deposition centres) scheme formulated by the Delhi High Court shall not be limited only to child witnesses who have not attended the age of 18 years and would be expanded to include specified categories of vulnerable witnesses.]

11. As per the latest Judgement of the Supreme Court, a vulnerable witness is a victim of sexual assault (S.354 IPC) under the age of ……..years

(a) 18 Years

(b) 20 Years

(c) 30 Years

(d) Age neutral

Ans.: (d)

[ In Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of "vulnerable witness" in a criminal case, which earlier used to be a child below the age of 18, to include age and gender neutral victims of sexual assault and witnesses suffering from mental illness among others]

12. As per the latest Judgement of the Supreme Court, which among the following is/are 'vulnerable witness/es' ?

(a) age and gender-neutral victims of sexual assault

(b) witnesses suffering from mental illness

(c) any witness deemed to have threat perception

(d) any speech or hearing impaired individual

(e) All the above

Ans.: (e)

[In Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court expanded to include inter alia the following categories of vulnerable witnesses-

a. age neutral victims of sexual assault read with section 273 and 327 of the Cr. P. C. and section 354 of the IPC;

b. gender neutral victims of sexual assault read with section 2(d) of the POCSO Act;

c. age and gender neutral victims of sexual assault under section 377 of the IPC read with paragraph 34(1) of the decision in Sakshi v. Union of India;

d. witnesses suffering from mental illness as defined under section 2(s) of the mental healthcare act of 2017 read with section 118 of the Indian evidence act;

e. any witness deemed to have threat perception under the witness protection scheme 2018 of the union government as approved by this court in Mahendra Chawla v union of India 2019 14 SCC 615;

f. any speech or hearing impaired individual or a person suffering from any other disability who is considered to be a vulnerable witness by the competent court;

g. any other witnesses deemed to be vulnerable by the court concerned]

13. Supreme Court recently directed that apart from criminal cases, vulnerable witness deposition centres should also be utilised in….

(a) Civil Courts

(b) Family Courts

(c) Juvenile Justice Boards and Children's Courts

(d) All the above.

Ans.: (d)

[In Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra (II) Supreme Court noted that apart from criminal cases, vulnerable witness deposition centres should also be utilised and permission should be granted to record evidence of vulnerable witnesses in cases in civil jurisdictions, family courts, juvenile justice boards and Children's courts]

14. Supreme Court in January 2022 quashed the resolution passed by ………………. Assembly to suspend 12 BJP MLAs.

(a) Goa

(b) Madhya Pradesh

(c) Maharashtra

(d). All the above.

Ans.: (c)

[In Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, Supreme Court quashed the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution of July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behaviour in the house.]

15. In which of the following cases Supreme Court, in January 2022 held that "before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs"

(a) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

(b) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India

(c) Sunil Kumar vs State of Bihar

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (a)

[In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, Supreme Court delivered the judgment on the issue relating to reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Centre and States had urged the Supreme Court to settle the confusion regarding the norms for reservation in promotions saying that several appointments have been stalled due to ambiguities. The bench made the following pronouncements: i. Court cannot lay down any yardstick to determine inadequacy of representation. ii. State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding adequacy of representation. iii. 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. iv. Nagaraj judgment of 2006 would have a prospective effect. v. The conclusion in BK Pavitra (II) approving the collection of data on the basis of groups and not cadres is contrary to the dictum in Jarnail Singh]