Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. The Supreme Court cannot convert the accused acquittal to conviction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Test out the validity of the statement with the following options.

a. The Supreme Court couldn't interfere with the order of acquittal.

b. It is impermissible for the Supreme Court to convert the order of acquittal to conviction.

c. It is permissible for the Supreme Court to convert the acquittal to conviction if the acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds and results in a travesty of justice.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution it can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court does not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal except when the prosecution's case proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Acquittal Is Based On Irrelevant Grounds, Supreme Court Obligated To Interfere Under Article 136: Supreme Court

Q 2. Recently, in Sita Soren v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court overturned its previous ruling in the PV Narasimha Rao Case. What did the Supreme Court held in Sita Soren's Case?

a. Receiving Bribery in contemplation of a vote or speech is protected by parliamentary privileges guaranteed under the Constitution.

b. Receiving Bribery in contemplation of a vote or speech is not protected by parliamentary privileges guaranteed under the Constitution.

c. A member of parliament or the state legislature cannot claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment which held that members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.

The Constitution Bench in Sita Soren's Case held that a member of parliament or the state legislature cannot claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court by virtue of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.

Bribery Not Protected By Legislative Privileges; No Immunity For MPs/MLAs Taking Bribe For Vote/Speech In Legislature: Supreme Court

Q 3. As per Order 8 Rules 5 & 8 of CPC, is it mandatory for the defendant to give para-wise specific denial to allegations levied in the plaintiff's plaint to avoid admission of allegations made in the plaint?

a. No, it is not mandatory to give para wise reply to the plaint in the written statement.

b. No, an evasive denial can also be made in the written statement.

c. Yes, if para-wise specific denial to the allegation is not made then the allegations in the plaint are deemed to be admitted against the defendant. 

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the failure of the defendant to give para-wise specific denial against the claim made by the plaintiff would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.

Written Statement Must Have Para-Wise Reply To Plaint; Allegations Deemed To Be Admitted Unless Specifically Denied: Supreme Court

Q 4. Can a Plaintiff seek partition of a property based on the registered partition deed that does not find mention in the plaintiff's pleadings? 

a. Yes, the plaintiff can seek partition even if the partition deed isn't mentioned in the pleading.

b. No, the plaintiff cannot seek partition based on the partition deed that was not part of the pleadings.

c. The plaintiff cannot seek partition because of the settled principle of law that no evidence could be led beyond the pleadings.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the evidence that was not a part of the pleadings couldn't be led in the trial.

No Evidence Could Be Led Beyond Pleadings: Supreme Court

Q 5. Recently, in one of the following cases, the Supreme Court mulls guidelines to strengthen & streamline the functioning of Bar Associations across the country. 

a. A. Mohondoss v. Registrar General & Ors.

b. In Re: Strengthening of the Institution of Bar Associations.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. None of the above.

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: In a recent development, the Supreme Court in the case of A. Mohondoss v. Registrar General & Ors. has taken up the issue of strengthening and enhancing the overall functioning of Bar Associations across the country. However, the Supreme Court changed the case title that shall now be "In Re: Strengthening of the Institution of Bar Associations."

Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines To Strengthen & Streamline Functioning Of Bar Associations Across Country

Q 6. An Investigating Officer is accused of wrongful arrest, however, the High Court granted bail. In light of the statement state whether the standard of granting bail to the investigating officer differs from granting bail to a layperson.

a. The High Court committed no error in granting bail to the Investigating Officer, as the standard of granting bail is the same for all.

b. The High Court committed an error in granting bail to the Investigating Officer, as the standard of granting bail to the investigating officer is different from layperson.

c. As the investigating officer is entrusted with the fiduciary duty to carry forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion to punish the guilty, therefore, standard applicable while granting bail to the investigating officer may differ from the layperson.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court denied pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to a police officer who failed to discharge its fundamental duty as a police officer of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion to punish the guilty.

Standards Of Granting Bail To Police Officer Different From Layperson: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Cop Accused Of Wrongful Arrest

Q 7. Recently, in one of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that criticizing the abrogation of Article 370 and wishing Pakistanis on their Independence Day was not an offence.

a. Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

b. Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors

c. Ramesh v. Union of India

d. None of the above

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against a professor for his WhatsApp status criticising the abrogation of Article 370, describing it as a 'Black Day' for Jammu and Kashmir.

"If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive.", the Supreme Court said.

Criticising Abrogation Of J&K Special Status, Wishing Pakistanis On Their Independence Day Not Offence: Supreme Court

Q 8. A Police Officer sought cancellation of the interim protection granted to the accused on the grounds of non-cooperation with the police. In light of the statement decide whether the police can compel the accused to make a self-incriminating statement during interrogation. 

a. Yes, the interim protection should be cancelled as the accused is bound to cooperate with the police.

b. No, the interim protection could not be cancelled because the accused isn't cooperating with the police.

c. No, the interim protection could not be cancelled as the police cannot compel the accused to make self-incriminating statements against himself.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that where the interim protection from arrest is subject to the accused's cooperation in the investigation, he/ she is not expected to make self-incriminating statements under threat of the State seeking the withdrawal of such protection.

Cooperating With Investigation Doesn't Mean Accused Is Expected To Make Self-Incriminating Statements: Supreme Court

Q 9. An Accused has committed an offence under the Old law which prescribes larger punishment, however, the accused sought a reduction in the sentence of imprisonment based on Article 20 (1) of the Constitution after the introduction of a new law which prescribes lesser punishment. Would the accused get the benefit of lesser punishment under the new law?

a. Yes, the accused would get the benefit of the new law even though the new law wasn't in force when the offence was committed.

b. No, because Article 20 (1) doesn't empower the Court to impose a lesser punishment on the accused.

c. No, the accused wouldn't get the benefit of lesser punishment as the law applicable at the time of offence prescribes higher punishment.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that Article 20(1) of the Constitution doesn't restrain the Courts from imposing a lesser punishment based on a new law which came into force after the date of commission of the offence.

Article 20 Doesn't Prohibit Court From Imposing Lesser Punishment As Per New Law: Supreme Court

Q 10. Due to a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion an accused in an inebriated state set ablaze her wife while pouring kerosene oil. Decide the offence committed by the accused.

a. The accused has committed murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.

b. The accused has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC.

c. The accused shouldn't be spared as he has the intention to kill his wife.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court recently converted the conviction of a husband, who killed his pregnant wife by setting fire to her after pouring kerosine oil, for the offence of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code to the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part-II of Section 304 IPC30.

'Not Murder, But Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder': Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Of Husband Who Burnt Wife Alive In Sudden Quarrel