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

a) Constitutional Validity of reservations for OBCs at NEET-UG level

b) Constitutional Validity of reservations for OBCs at NEET-PG level

c) Constitutional Validity of reservations for SCs at NEET-PG level

d) None of the above

Answer: b

Explanation: The main issue in the case was as to reservation for OBCs in NEET-PG Courses. The same was upheld by the court and it observed as followed:

"In our opinion, it cannot be said that the impact of backwardness simply disappears because a candidate has a graduate qualification. Indeed, a graduate qualification may provide certain social and economic mobility, but that by itself does not create parity between forward classes and backward classes. In any event, there cannot be an assertion of over-inclusion where undeserving candidates are said to be benefitting from reservation because OBC candidates who fall in the creamy layer are excluded from taking the benefit of reservation. Thus, we find that there is no prohibition in introducing reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) in PG courses."

Q2. In a recent decision of Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi., it was held that:

a) judgment delivered by larger bench to prevail irrespective of number of judges in majority

b) judgment delivered by a five judge bench unanimously will prevail over a seven judge bench decision with the majority of 4:3

c) Either a and b

d) None of the above

Answer: a

Explanation: The bench observed in this case that judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority-In view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.

Q3. Which of the following is true regarding the observation in the case of In Re Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138, Negotiable instruments Act, 1881?

a) Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act

b) Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act.

c) Trial Court has inherent power to recall the summons under Section 138

d) None of the Above

Answer: a

Explanation: Supreme Court observed in the aforementioned case: Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters and Instruments Private Ltd and Another v Kanchan Mehta and others (2018) 1 SCC 560 do not lay down correct law.

Q4. The recent landmark case of Union of India v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom deals with which of following laws?

a) Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988

b) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

c) Immoral Traffic Prohibition Act, 1956

d) None of the above

Answer: a

Explanation: The Court has declared the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which imposed a blanket ban on benami transactions, as unconstitutional for being "unduly harsh", "disproportionate" and "manifestly arbitrary". The bench observed that: "Section 3 (criminal provision) read with Section 2(a) and Section 5 (confiscation proceedings) of the 1988 Act are overly broad, disproportionately harsh, and operate without adequate safeguards in place. Such provisions were still­born law and never utilized in the first place. In this light, this Court finds that Sections 3 and 5 of the 1988 Act were unconstitutional from their inception."

Q5. In the landmark case of Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt Ltd. delivered last year, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier judgment to hold that:

a) A delay of more than 120 days in filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 can be condoned.

b) A delay of more than 120 days in filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be condoned.

c) The delay can be condoned under Section 5Limiatation Act, 1963, however, not as a norm but as an exception

d) Both a and c

Answer: a

Explanation: A two-judge bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat overruled its 2019 verdict in the case M/s NV International vs State of Assam which had strictly held that a delay of more than 120 days in filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be condoned.

The Top Court has now held that delay beyond 90, 60 or 30 days for filing appeals under Section 37, depending on the forum, can be condoned. But the Court added a rider that such condonation of delay should be an exception and not the norm, having regard to the objective of the Arbitration Act for expeditious settlement of claims.

Q6. Last year, Supreme Court made an important observation as to the jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal. Which of the following is true as to its observation?

a) National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu powers to take cognizance on the basis of letters, representations and media reports.

b) National Green Tribunal cannot cognizance on the basis of letters, representations and media reports.

c) The jurisdiction of National Green tribunal is restricted and can be invoked only on an application made by a person/organization

d) None of the above

Answer: a

Explanation: In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha Supreme Court declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu powers to take cognizance on the basis of letters, representations and media reports. The Court held that the NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution as the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010 (NGT Act) provides the Tribunal with wide ranging powers beyond that of a mere adjudicatory body.

Q7. Which of the following is true as to the observations made in the Vanniyar Quota case by the Supreme Court?

a) 105th Constitutional Amendment is prospective in nature

b) 105th Constitutional Amendment is retrospective in nature

c) 105th Constitutional Amendment is invalid in law

d) None of the above

Answer: a

Explanation: The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai rejected the contention that the Constitution 105th Amendment Act is clarificatory in nature and has to be given retrospective effect from the date on which the 102nd Amendment Act came into effect. n its judgment holding that the Tamil Nadu law providing internal reservation of 10.5 % to the Vanniyar Community under the category Most Backward Classes is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution 105th Amendment Act is prospective in nature.

Q8. In Noel Harper and others versus Union of India the SC tested the constitutionality of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2020. Which of the following is true as to its observations in the case?

a) The bench upheld the substantial changes made by the Amendment

b) The bench read down the condition that Aadhaar numbers should be given for FCRA clearance and said that applicants should be allowed to produce Passports

c) The bench struck down the amendment as unconstitutional in toto

d) Both a and b

Answer: d

Explanation: The bench observed in its concluding paragraph: To sum up, we declare that the amended provisions vide the 2020 Act, namely, Sections 7, 12(1A), 12A and 17 of the 2010 Act are intra vires the Constitution and the Principal Act, for the reasons noted hitherto. As regards Section 12A, we have read down the said provision and construed it as permitting the key functionaries/office bearers of the applicant (associations/NGOs) who are Indian nationals, to produce Indian Passport for the purpose of their identification. That shall be regarded as substantial compliance of the mandate in Section 12A concerning identification",

Q9. Which of the following is true as to the observations of the Supreme Court on the issues of OROP Policy of Defense Forces?

a) Supreme Court upheld the policy

b) Supreme Court struck down the policy

c) Supreme Court held that there is no legal mandate that same rank pensions should be give same pension

d) Both a and c

Answer: d

Explanation: In the case of Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (An All India Federation Of Military Veterans Organisation Represented Vs. Union Of India Department Of Exservicemen Welfare Ministry Of Defence Secretary, the Supreme Court on upheld the manner in which the Central Government introduced the "One Rank One Pension" scheme in defence forces as per its notification dated November 7, 2015. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath refused to accept the challenge made by the association "Indian Ex-Service Movement" against the 2015 notification issued by the Centre and observed that there is no legal mandate that same rank pensioners be given the same pension

Q10. Supreme Court in a recent judgment observed that if there is a difference of opinion between CAT Judicial Member & Administrative Member, then:

a) Reference is to be made to a full bench

b) Reference is to be made to third Member/Chairman

c) Reference is to be made to the HC

d) None of the above

Answer: b

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a reference to Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal is not required if there in a case of difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal.

In such a situation, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman who has to give his own decision upon such a reference.

Q11. Which of the following is true with respect to the applicability of Section 468, CrPC to Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

a) Section 468, CrPC is applicable to the application under Section 12 of the Act

b) Section 468, CrPC is not applicable to the application under Section 12 of the Act

c) Section 468, CrPC would be applicable under Section 31 of the Act

d) Both b and c

Answer: d

Explanation: The Supreme Court in a recent judgment [Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan] has held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable for the filing of an application by an aggrieved woman under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It observed as follows:

The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an application under Section 12 to initiate the proceedings before the concerned Magistrate. After hearing both sides and after taking into account the material on record, the Magistrate may pass an appropriate order under Section 12 of the Act. It is only the breach of such order which constitutes an offence as is clear from Section 31 of the Act. Thus, if there be any offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code will apply from the date of commission of such offence. By the time an application is preferred under Section 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Act.

Q12. In Jagjeet Singh And Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu And Anr., the Supreme Court of India made important observations as to the rights of a victim in a criminal justice system. Which of the following is true?

a) 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision

b) A 'victim' has to wait till the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings.

c) A victim has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence.

d) Both a and c

Answer: d

Explanation: The Bench noted that the right of the victim is independent of that of the State under the Cr.P.C. and the presence of the State in the proceedings cannot substitute the right of the victim to be heard. It noted -

"A 'victim' within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision."

Q13. As per the recent decision of the Supreme Court, which of the following is true with respect to Arbitral Tribunal's power to grant post award interest?

a) Arbitral Tribunal can grant can grant post award interest, including interest on interest

b) Arbitral Tribunal can grant can grant post award interest, but not interest on interest

c) Arbitral Tribunal can grant cannot grant post award interest

d) None of the above

Answer: a

Explanation: The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna held in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd v. U.B. Engineering Ltd and Anr. that the arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component. The Court held that the word sum used under Section 31(7) of the A&C Act includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims.

Q14. Which of the following is true as to observations of the Supreme Court in Re : TN Godavarman Thirumalpad versus Union of India as to the mandatory eco sensitive zones?

a) Each protected forest, that is national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest

b) For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned

c) If ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail.

d) All of the Above

Answer: d

Explanation: The bench observed that ach protected forest, that is national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned. In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail.

Q15. Supreme Court recently made some observations regarding equal pay for equal work. Which of the following is true?

a) Equal Pay for Eqaul work is a fundamental right vested in every employee

b) It is a constitutional goal

c) Both and b

d) None of the Above

Answer: b

Explanation: In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. RD Sharma, SC observed that "Equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government

Q16. Which of the following is true with respect to the recent Supreme Court decision of Attorney General of India v. Satish and Anr?

a) Skin-to-skin contact is necessary to attract culpability Section 7, POCSO

b) The most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act is the "sexual intent" and not the "skin to skin" contact with the child

c) Skin to skin contact for constituting an offence of "sexual assault" under Section 7 could not have been intended or contemplated by the Legislature.

d) Both b and c

Answer: d

Explanation: The Supreme Court of India while setting aside the controversial judgment of the Bombay HC which held that 'skin-to-skin' contact is necessary for the offence of sexual assault under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observed that the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act is the "sexual intent" and not the "skin to skin" contact with the child.