Judicial Service Exams: Question And Answers(MCQs) Based On Latest Judgements

a. Satender Kumar Antil v. UOI

b. Court on its own motion v. UOI

c. Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab

d. Marino Bruno v. UOI

Answer: a [Satender Kumar Antil v. Union of India]

Explanation: In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Supreme Court observed: "The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails."

Q2. Which of the following is not one of the several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue of delivery of judgments?

a. Courts and tribunals must also ensure that the version of the judgments and orders uploaded is accessible and signed using digital signatures.

b. The practice of printing and scanning documents should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens.

c. In terms of structuring judgments, it would be beneficial for courts to structure them in a manner such that the "Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion‟ are easily identifiable.

d. None of the Above

Answer: d [None of the above]

Explanation: The following observations were made by the division bench of the Supreme Court in SBI v. Ajay Kumar Sood:

"On the note of accessibility, the importance of making judgments accessible to persons from all sections of society, especially persons with disability needs emphasis. All judicial institutions must ensure that the judgments and orders being published by them do not carry improperly placed watermarks as they end up making the documents inaccessible for persons with visual disability who use screen readers to access them. On the same note, courts and tribunals must also ensure that the version of the judgments and orders uploaded is accessible and signed using digital signatures. They should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens. In terms of structuring judgments, it would be beneficial for courts to structure them in a manner such that the "Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion" are easily identifiable. The well-renowned "IRAC‟ method generally followed for analyzing cases and structuring submissions can also benefit judgments when it is complemented by recording the facts and submissions."

Q3. The Supreme Court in the recent case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh applied the sustained provocation test while dealing with Exception 1 to Section 300, IPC. Which of the following is true with respect to this test?

a. The gravity of provocation has to be seen in light of the history of abuse and not just the final provocative act

b. Defence is not available in case of there is evidence of planning or reflection which shows premeditation

c. Both a and b are true

d. None of the above

Answer: c [Both a and b are true]

Explanation: The Supreme Court in this case explaining the concept of grave and sudden provocation held that:

Last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control. The cumulative or sustained provocation test would be satisfied when the accused's retaliation was immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort of provocative conduct, which would satisfy the requirement of sudden or immediate provocation. Thus, the gravity of the provocation can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse and need not be confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form of acts, words or gestures. The final wrongdoing, triggering off the accused's reaction, should be identified to show that there was temporary loss of self-control and the accused had acted without planning and premeditation.

Q4. The Supreme Court of India held in which of the following recent cases that sexual harassment trials apart from rape cases, must also be held in camera?

a. XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh

b. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra

c. XYZ v. State of Haryana

d. XYZ v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Answer: a [XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh]

Explanation: Supreme Court in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh observed that it is the duty and responsibility of trial courts to deal with the aggrieved persons before them in an appropriate manner, by allowing proceedings to be conducted in camera, where appropriate, either under Section 327 CrPC or when the case otherwise involves the aggrieved person (or other witness) testifying as to their experience of sexual harassment / violence.

Q5. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court of India, while expounding of the concept of "family" and "atypical family units" held that a woman cannot be denied maternity leave on the ground that she took child-care leave for the 2 biological children of her spouse?

a. Deepika Singh v. CAT

b. Damodar Singh v. CAT

c. Prashant Singh v. SBI

d. Akela Lalita v. UOI

Answer: a [Deepika Singh v. CAT]

Explanation: In Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that a woman's statutory right to take maternity leave cannot be restricted because she previously used child care leave for her non-biological children and observed as follows:

"Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the "mother" and the "father") of children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering. These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts".

Q6. The Supreme Court recently in case of Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. clarified that the 2018 Amendment to Specific Relief Act, 1963:

a. Is retrospective in its operation

b. Is prospective in its operation

c. Is partly retrospective in its operation

d. None of the above

Answer: b [Is prospective]

Explanation: In Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court of India held, inter alia, that the 2018 Amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is prospective and does not apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force.

Q7. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court of India, has directed the Centre to simplify the adoption process?

a. Temple of Healing v. UOI

b. Deepika Singh v. CAT

c. Yashwant Singh v. UOI

d. None of the above

Answer: a. Temple of Healing v. Union of India

Explanation: In Temple of Healing v. UOI, Supreme Court has directed the Centre to file an affidavit listing the steps taken by it to simplify adoption process in the country.

Q8. In which of the following recent judgments, the Supreme Court of India has stressed on the "duty of the prosecution to complete disclosure" and held that Draft Rule 4 of Criminal Rules 2021 must be complied with in all criminal trials irrespective of whether it has been enforced in the respective state or not?

a. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu

b. Srinivas v. State of Maharashtra

c. Manoj v. State of Maharashtra

d. None of the above

Answer: a [Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu]

Explanation: In P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, the bench observed:

"That some High Courts or governments of the States/ Union Territories have failed to comply with this court's order and are delayed in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice the right of an accused (to receive this list of the statements, documents, material, etc. in the possession of the prosecution), which has unequivocally been recognized by this court. To say that the judgment in Manoj v. State of MP in relation to this, and the right of the accused to receive the said list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted – would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one state, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another."

Q9. Which of the following is true as to the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court?

a. Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District has jurisdiction to hear applications/appeals under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996

b. Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District do not jurisdiction to hear applications/appeals under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996

c. Only Commercial Courts which are superior to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District have jurisdiction to hear applications/appeals under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996

d. Both b and c

Answer: a [ Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District has jurisdiction to hear applications/appeals under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996]

Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs Registrar (General), Orissa High Court observed that Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District has jurisdiction to hear applications/appeals under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari rejected the contention that all applications/appeals arising out of arbitration (other than the international commercial arbitration) shall only lie before the Principal Civil Court of a district.

Q10. In which of the recent cases, the Supreme Court has directed that police authorities should take suo moto action against hate speech?

a. In re Hate speech laws in India

b. Shaheen Abdulla v. UOI

c. Kartik Chakraborty v. UOI

d. None of the Above

Answer: b [Shaheen Abdulla v. UOI]

Explanation: Supreme Court in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India directed Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi Governments to take suo motu action against hate speech crimes without waiting for formal complaints irrespective of the religion of the offender and ensure that immediately as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law.

Q11. In which of the recent cases, the Supreme Court held that arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their fees?

a. ONGC v. Afcons Gunanusa JV

b. Vag Educational Services v. Aakash

c. BSNL v. Nortel

d. None of the above

Answer: a [ONGC v. Afcons Gunanusa JV]

Explanation: The Supreme Court in ONGC v. Afcons Gunanusa JV held:

• Arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their fees.
• The term, 'sum in dispute' in the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act refers to the sum in dispute in a claim and counter-claim separately, and not cumulatively.
• The highest fee payable shall be INR 30,00,000; and this ceiling is applicable to each arbitrator, and not the arbitral tribunal as a whole.

Q12. In a recent judgment of State of Andhra Pradesh vs Raghu Rama Krishna, the Supreme Court while dealing with the construction works on Rishikonda Hills in Vishakhapatnam held that:

a. In case of conflicting orders passed by HC and NGT, the HC order will prevail

b. In case of conflicting orders passed by HC and NGT, the order by NGT will prevail

c. In case of conflicting orders passed by HC and NGT, none will prevail

d. None of the above

Answer: a [In case of conflicting orders passed by HC and NGT, the HC order will prevail]

Explanation: It has been held in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Kanumuru (MP), delivered by the division bench of Justices B R Gavai and Hima Kohli, that:

"No law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. A reference in this respect was also made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others... We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals."

Q13. In which of following recent judgments the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

a. Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. UOI

b. Satyendra Jain Vs UOI

c. Marino Bruno v. UOI

d. Karti P Chidambaram versus The Directorate of Enforcement

Answer: a [Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India]

Q14. In Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. UOI, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In the review petition filed subsequently, the Apex court agreed to review the judgment on which of the following two aspects/specific issues:

a. Non-disclosure of ECIR

b. The validity of the twin conditions of bail

c. Reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the Act

d. Both a and c

Answer: d [Both a and c]

Explanation:

In Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, a bench headed by CJI NV Ramana opined that prima facie, two aspects of the judgment upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) require to be reconsidered: (i) regarding no legal requirement to provide ECIR copy to the accused and (ii) the reversal of presumption of innocence.

Q15. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court of India held that a mother can give the surname of her second husband to her child?

a. Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Roa

b. Mandhuban Singh v. UOI

c. Deepak Kansal v. State of Punjab

d. Parvatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujrat

Answer: a [Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Roa]

Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Roa that the mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoption. In this case the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment which directed a mother to change the surname of her child and also to show the name of her new husband in records only as 'step father'.

Q16. Who among the following Supreme Court judges was not a part of coram in the recent case of Vijay Madanlal v. UOI, which upheld the constitutional validity of PMLA?

a. Justice Dinesh Maheswari

b. Justice MR Shah

c. Justice Khanwilkar

d. Justice CT Ravikumar

Answer: b [Justice MR Shah]

Explanation: The three judge bench in Vijay Madanlal v. Union of India comprised of Justice Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar.

The bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha observed that where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such institutions would not be entitled to approval. The bench observed that entities created with the object of advancing general public utility cannot seek exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961 under the head "charitable purposes" if they are engaging in any trade, business, commerce or providing any service for any consideration.

Q17. In which of the recent landmark judgments, the Supreme Court of India has directed all judicial institutions to ensure that judgments do not carry improperly places watermarks, which make the document inaccessible to visually impaired people using screen readers:

a. RIT Foundation v. UOI

b. State Bank of India v. Ajay Sood

c. Vijay Madanlal v. UOI

d. Mahant Singh v. UOI

Answer: b [State Bank of India v. Ajay Sood]

Explanation: In State Bank of India v. Ajay Sood, the Supreme Court of India directed that all judicial institutions must ensure that the judgments and orders being published by them do not carry improperly placed watermarks as they end up making the documents inaccessible for persons with visual disability who use screen readers to access them.