Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examination
1. A is prosecuted for murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence. During police custody, A gives a statement leading to the recovery of a dead body from a forest area. The prosecution relies mainly on this disclosure statement and the alleged recovery. There is no reliable “last seen” evidence, motive is weak, medical evidence does not clearly support the prosecution timeline,...
1. A is prosecuted for murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence. During police custody, A gives a statement leading to the recovery of a dead body from a forest area. The prosecution relies mainly on this disclosure statement and the alleged recovery. There is no reliable “last seen” evidence, motive is weak, medical evidence does not clearly support the prosecution timeline, and other links in the chain of circumstances are missing.
In such a case, which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. Conviction can be based solely on the disclosure statement and recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
B. Disclosure statement is substantive evidence and by itself sufficient to prove guilt.
C. Disclosure statement and recovery can only be used as a supporting circumstance and conviction is possible only if the entire chain of circumstances is complete.
D. Once recovery is proved, other circumstances become irrelevant.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (and connected matter), Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 59
Explanation: Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only that portion of the statement which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible. A disclosure statement is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused. Recovery pursuant to a disclosure can at best be one link in that chain, not the entire chain itself.
2. A enters into an agreement to sell his land to B. Before any suit is filed, A sells the same land to C for consideration. Later, B files a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, C further transfers the property to D. D claims protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act and resists execution of the decree passed in favour of B.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
(a) D is protected under Section 19(b) because he purchased the property for value and without notice of the original contract.
(b) D is protected because every subsequent purchaser gets an independent right irrespective of pendency of litigation.
(c) D can resist execution unless actual notice of the pending suit is proved against him.
(d) D is not protected, as once the suit is filed, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies and overrides Section 19(b).
Correct Answer: D
Cause Title: ALKA SHRIRANG CHAVAN & ANR. VERSUS HEMCHANDRA RAJARAM BHONSALE & ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44
Explanation: Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act operates only before the institution of a suit and protects a bona fide purchaser who buys for value, in good faith, and without notice of the prior contract. Once a suit for specific performance is instituted, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of lis pendens) comes into operation. Any transfer made during pendency of the suit becomes subject to the result of litigation, and the defence of bona fide purchase under Section 19(b) is no longer available. Hence, D cannot resist execution of the decree.
3. A borrows money from B in one transaction and issues three post-dated cheques towards repayment. All three cheques are dishonoured on different dates. After serving separate statutory notices and on failure of payment, B files three separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A argues that only one complaint is maintainable since all cheques arose from the same transaction and liability.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
A. Only one complaint is maintainable because there is a single underlying transaction.
B. Each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action, and separate complaints are maintainable.
C. Multiple complaints are not maintainable unless the cheques were issued for different transactions.
D. Complaints can be merged by the court into one proceeding as a matter of law.
Correct Answer: B
Case : Sumit Bansal v M/s MGI Developers and Promoters, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 34
Explanation: Under Section 138 NI Act, each dishonour of a cheque, followed by compliance with statutory requirements (presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment), creates a separate and distinct cause of action. The fact that multiple cheques arise from the same transaction does not merge them into a single cause of action. Therefore, multiple complaints are legally maintainable.
4. A shareholder alleges that certain directors of a company have committed “fraud” by filing false documents and making false statements before statutory authorities. He directly files a private criminal complaint before the Special Court under the Companies Act, seeking prosecution of the directors. The Special Court takes cognizance of the offence.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. The Special Court can take cognizance on any complaint, including a private complaint, if prima facie fraud is made out.
B. The complaint is not maintainable, as cognizance of offences involving fraud can be taken only on a complaint by the Director, SFIO or an officer authorised by the Central Government.
C. The complaint is maintainable only if the complainant is a shareholder holding at least 10% of the company's shares.
D. The complaint is maintainable only after obtaining prior sanction from the Registrar of Companies.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 28
Explanation: For offences relating to “fraud” under the Companies Act (including those covered under Section 447 and linked provisions like Sections 448 and 451), the Special Court can take cognizance only on a complaint made by the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) or an officer authorised by the Central Government, as per Section 212(6). A private criminal complaint is barred.
5. Recently, in which of the following cases did the Supreme Court urge the Union Government to bring the Romeo-Juliet Clause in the POCSO Act to shield consensual sexual relationships from prosecution?
a. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS ANURUDH & ANR
b. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS ANURAG & ANR
c. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS ARMENDRA & ANR
d. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS AKASH & ANR
Correct Answer: A
Cause Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS ANURUDH & ANR, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 29
Explanation: In a significant post-script to the judgment, acknowledged the growing misuse of the POCSO Act in cases where the relationship is romantic and consensual, but one of the parties is technically a minor. The Bench observed that such prosecutions often criminalise youthful relationships and result in severe consequences not only for the accused but also for the victim and their families.
6. A Hindu male dies intestate leaving behind his sons as heirs. One of his sons had already died earlier, and his widow is living separately without any independent source of income. Another son dies after the father's death, and his widow also claims maintenance from the estate of the deceased father-in-law. The heirs oppose her claim on the ground that she was not a widow at the time of her father-in-law's death.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
A. Only the widow whose husband died before the father-in-law can claim maintenance, as she was a dependant at the time of death.
B. Only the widow whose husband died after the father-in-law can claim maintenance, as dependency arises later.
C. Both widows are entitled to claim maintenance, subject to their inability to maintain themselves from their husband's or children's estate.
D. Neither widow can claim maintenance, as dependency must exist strictly on the date of the father-in-law's death.
Correct Answer: C
Case : Kanchana Rai v Geeta Sharma, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 41
Explanation: Under Sections 21(vii) and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, “any widow of his son” is treated as a dependant. The statute does not distinguish between a widow whose husband died before or after the father-in-law. The timing of the son's death is immaterial. Any interpretation creating such a distinction would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The only relevant condition is the widow's inability to maintain herself from her husband's estate or from her children's estate.
7. A files a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against B. During the pendency of the suit, B sells the same property to C. After the suit is decreed in favour of A, C files an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC objecting to the execution and delivery of possession, claiming independent ownership.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
A. C can resist execution because he is a bona fide purchaser for value.
B. C can resist execution if he was not impleaded as a party to the suit.
C. C cannot resist execution as a transferee pendente lite due to the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC.
D. C can resist execution and the executing court must decide his title independently.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: ALKA SHRIRANG CHAVAN & ANR. VERSUS HEMCHANDRA RAJARAM BHONSALE & ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44
Explanation: A transferee pendente lite is bound by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Order XXI Rule 102 CPC bars such a transferee from obstructing execution of the decree, irrespective of notice or bona fides.
8. An arbitral tribunal interprets a contractual clause in one of two reasonably possible ways and passes an award based on that interpretation. The losing party challenges the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but the challenge is rejected by the court. In an appeal under Section 37, the appellate court finds that another interpretation of the clause would have been “better” and more appropriate.
Can the appellate court interfere with the arbitral award on this ground?
A. Yes, because the appellate court has full power to substitute its own interpretation of the contract.
B. Yes, because a better interpretation automatically makes the award contrary to law.
C. No, because mere existence of another possible or better interpretation is not a ground for interference.
D. No, but only if the amount awarded is small and does not affect public revenue.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: JAN DE NUL DREDGING INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS TUTICORIN PORT TRUST, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 47
Explanation: Limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; courts cannot interfere with an arbitral award merely because another interpretation of the contract is possible or appears better, so long as the tribunal's view is a reasonable and plausible one.
9. A files a suit against B alleging that B has constructed a wall over A's land and seeks a decree of mandatory injunction simpliciter directing demolition of the wall. B disputes A's title and claims ownership and possession of the land. No relief of declaration of title or recovery of possession is sought by A.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
(a) The suit is maintainable since mandatory injunction can be granted even when title is disputed.
(b) The suit is not maintainable as A must first establish possession, not title.
(c) The suit is maintainable because injunction is a discretionary and flexible remedy.
(d) The suit is barred since a more efficacious remedy of declaration of title and recovery of possession is available.
Correct Answer: D
Cause Title: SANJAY PALIWAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 54
Explanation: When there is a serious dispute regarding title and possession and construction has been raised on the disputed property, a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. Under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, injunction shall not be granted when a more efficacious remedy is available. The proper remedy is a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, with consequential injunction, rather than a bare injunction suit.
10. A Central statute and the Rules framed thereunder prescribe the educational qualification for appointment to a particular public post. Subsequently, a State Government, by framing service rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, adds an additional requirement of prior experience and treats it as an essential qualification for initial appointment. Certain eligible candidates challenge the State rule.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
A. The State can prescribe additional qualifications since recruitment and service conditions fall exclusively within its domain under Article 309.
B. The State can add qualifications only if they improve administrative efficiency, even if they conflict with Central Rules.
C. The State cannot prescribe qualifications inconsistent with those laid down under the Central statute and Rules, and the Central Rules will prevail.
D. The State rule will prevail unless the Central law expressly prohibits the State from prescribing additional qualifications.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: The State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. with connected matters, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 58
Explanation: When a field is already occupied by a Central law and the Rules framed thereunder (such as qualifications for a post), the State's power under the proviso to Article 309 is subject to the condition that its rules must not be inconsistent with the Central statute or Rules. Any additional or conflicting qualification prescribed by the State is ultra vires and unenforceable. The Central Rules prevail.
States Cannot Prescribe Qualifications Beyond Those Laid Down In Union Law: Supreme Court