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

(a) Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka

(b) Benazeer Heena v. Union of India

(c) Hamidunnisha v. State of Karnataka

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (a)

[Supreme Court passed a split verdict in a batch of appeals challenging restriction on Muslim girl students wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka.

Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the 26 appeals filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that hijab was not an essential practice of Islam and allowed the ban on wearing headscarf in educational institutions in the State. Expressing the divergence in his opinion, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment and held that the entire concept of essential religious practice was not essential to the dispute]

2. In the Hijab Case, who among the following Judges held that 'permitting one religious community to wear their religious symbols would be antithesis to secularism'?

(a) Justice Hemant Gupta

(b) Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (a)

[Sitting in a division bench that passed a split verdict in the Hijab case (Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka), Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the restriction on the ground that Secularism is applicable to all citizens, therefore, permitting one religious community to wear their religious symbols would be antithesis to secularism.

Justice Gupta held that the religious belief cannot be carried to a secular school maintained out of State funds. It is open to the students to carry their faith in a school which permits them to wear Hijab or any other mark, may be tilak, which can be identified to a person holding a particular religious belief but the State is within its jurisdiction to direct that the apparent symbols of religious beliefs cannot be carried to school maintained by the State from the State funds. Thus, the practice of wearing hijab could be restricted by the State in terms of the Government Order.]

3. In the Hijab Case, who among the following Judges held that, "asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity"?

(a) Justice Hemant Gupta

(b) Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (b)

[Sitting in a division bench that passed a split verdict in the Hijab case (Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka), Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment and opined that asking the girl student to remove the hijab at the school gate "is clearly violative of the Fundamental Right given to her under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.]

4. Which of the following state/s in India, for the first time, introduced the Hijab Ban in educational institutions?

(a) Uttar Pradesh

(b) Gujarat

(c) Karnataka

(d) (b) and (c)

Ans.: (c)

5. In the Hijab Case, who among the following Judges held that wearing Hijab is an essential religious practice (ERP) of Islamic faith?

(a) Justice Hemant Gupta

(b) Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (d)

[Though the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the Hijab ban case, both the judges of the bench did not decide the question whether the wearing of hijab is considered as an essential religious practice. The Karnataka High Court had held that hijab was not an essential religious practice of Islam and hence the petitioners could not claim protection under Article 25 of the Constitution]

6. Supreme Court has recently held that:

(a) Married daughter is a dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, eligible for compassionate appointment

(b) Married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, is not eligible for compassionate appointment

(c) Ans (a) is partly correct

(d) Ans (b) is partly correct

Ans.: (b)

[Supreme Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate held that a married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, is not eligible for compassionate appointment.]

7. Can a power of attorney holder continue to represent party if he/she got enrolled as an advocate during the proceedings?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (a)

[In S Ramachandra Rao v. S Nagabhushana Rao, Supreme Court observed that Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961does not create a bar for a General Power of Attorney holder to appear on behalf of a plaintiff, simply because he was enrolled as an advocate during the proceedings.]

8. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that profit oriented educational trusts can't claim Income Tax Exemption?

(a) M/S Educational Initiatives Pvt. Ltd v. Union Of India

(b) New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

(c) Queen's Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (b)

[In New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court held that educational trust or societies, which seek exemption under Section 10 (23C) of Income Tax Act, should solely be concerned with education, or education related activities. Where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such institutions would not be entitled to approval under Section 10(23C) of the IT Act. At the same time, where surplus accrues in a given year or set of years per se, it is not a bar, provided such surplus is generated in the course of providing education or educational activities.]

9. In which of the following judgments, the Supreme Court upheld the provisions of the Employees' Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 to be legal and valid?

(a) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Sreekumar

(b) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B Sunil Kumar

(c) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Manoj Mishra

(d) None of the above

Ans.: (b)

[In Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B Sunil Kumar, the Supreme Court held the provisions of the Employees' Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 to be legal and valid. However, so far as the present members of the fund are concerned, the Court has read down certain provisions of the scheme.

While allowing the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization and the Union Government challenging the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Court judgments which had quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014, the Court read down certain provisions of the scheme.

In a relief to several employees, the Court held that employees who have not exercised the option to join the Employees' Pension Scheme must be given a further chance of 4 months to do so.]

10. Supreme Court has recently held that;

(a) The income tax return is an accurate guide of the real income of parties engaged in a matrimonial conflict.

(b) The income tax returns may not be an accurate guide of the real income of parties engaged in a matrimonial conflict.

(c) Court has to determine the real income on a holistic assessment of the evidence before it.

(d) Ans (b) and (c) are correct

Ans.: (d)

[In Kiran Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court observed that the income tax returns may not be an accurate guide of the real income of parties engaged in a matrimonial conflict. Court held that Family Court has to determine the real income on a holistic assessment of the evidence before it.]