Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examination
1. A woman is found dead near a canal. CCTV footage from nearby roads captures a person with a distinctive gait walking towards the location around the relevant time. After arrest, the police direct the accused to walk in a particular manner at the crime scene so that forensic experts can compare his gait with the CCTV footage. During the exercise, the accused is not asked to narrate the...
1. A woman is found dead near a canal. CCTV footage from nearby roads captures a person with a distinctive gait walking towards the location around the relevant time. After arrest, the police direct the accused to walk in a particular manner at the crime scene so that forensic experts can compare his gait with the CCTV footage. During the exercise, the accused is not asked to narrate the incident or explain how the crime was committed. The forensic report later states that the gait pattern substantially matches the person seen in the CCTV footage.
Before trial, the accused challenges the admissibility of the re-enactment and gait analysis on the ground that compelling him to participate violated his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Sections 25–26 of the Evidence Act.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
(A) Any participation of the accused in the crime scene re-enactment automatically amounts to testimonial compulsion and is constitutionally barred.
(B) The re-enactment is admissible because physical attributes such as gait are not personal testimony, provided the accused is not compelled to disclose incriminating facts from personal knowledge.
(C) The gait analysis is inadmissible because expert opinion based on police-directed conduct is always hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
(D) Crime scene re-enactment is admissible only if the accused voluntarily confesses involvement in the crime during the demonstration.
Correct Answer: (B)
Cause Title: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v PONNUSAMY AND ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 519
Explanation: The constitutional protection under Article 20(3) applies only when the accused is compelled to provide testimonial evidence based on personal knowledge of the crime. A mere physical demonstration—such as walking, standing, or exhibiting bodily characteristics for scientific comparison—does not by itself amount to testimonial compulsion.
2. A prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was filed before a Special Court on 25 June 2024. The new criminal procedure code i.e., the BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024 and introduced a proviso mandating that in complaint cases, the accused must be given an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken. The Special Court took cognizance on 3 July 2024 without hearing the accused. The accused challenged the cognizance order.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. The old procedural code will continue to apply because filing of the complaint before commencement of the new code automatically excludes application of later procedural safeguards.
B. The hearing requirement is merely directory in nature, and unless the accused proves prejudice, the cognizance order cannot be set aside.
C. Since cognizance was taken after the commencement of the new code, the accused is entitled to the statutory right of hearing before cognizance, and non-compliance renders the cognizance order void ab initio even without proof of prejudice.
D. The hearing requirement cannot apply to proceedings under special statutes because special courts are entirely exempt from general criminal procedure provisions.
Correct Answer: (C)
Cause Title: PARVINDER SINGH VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 522
Explanation: The first proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS, granting an accused an opportunity of hearing before cognizance in a complaint case is a substantive safeguard linked to the right to fair trial under Article 21. Its mandatory nature is reflected through the use of the word “shall.” Therefore, if cognizance is taken after the new procedural code came into force, the accused becomes entitled to that safeguard unless proceedings protected by the savings clause had already commenced in the legal sense.
BNSS S.223(1) Proviso Mandatory; Cognizance Without Hearing Accused Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court
3. A Hindu male dies intestate in 1998 leaving behind ancestral property, his widow, two sons, and two daughters. In 2002, the sons execute a registered partition deed among themselves and their mother, excluding the daughters from the arrangement. In 2008, the daughters file a suit seeking partition and claim equal shares in the deceased father's interest in the property as Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The defendants seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that since the partition took place before 20 December 2004, Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act bars the suit.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. The suit is barred because Section 6(5) protects all pre-2004 partitions and extinguishes any later claim by daughters, irrespective of intestate succession rights.
B. The plaint must be rejected because once a registered partition deed exists, the court cannot examine its validity in a partition suit.
C. The daughters' claim survives because their rights as Class I heirs under Section 8 are independent of the coparcenary rights introduced by the 2005 amendment, and Section 6(5) is only a saving clause, not a jurisdictional bar.
D. The second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is maintainable as res judicata never applies to interlocutory applications filed by different parties.
Correct Answer: (C)
Cause Title: B.S. LALITHA AND OTHERS VERSUS BHUVANESH AND OTHERS, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 506
Expanation: Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act merely protects certain partitions effected before 20 December 2004 from the retroactive operation of the 2005 amendment granting daughters coparcenary rights by birth. However, it does not extinguish or override the independent intestate succession rights of daughters as Class I heirs under Section 8 when the father dies intestate.
4. A daughter files a civil suit seeking partition in ancestral property claiming inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act. During the pendency of the suit, some defendants file an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit is barred by law because a family arrangement had already taken place before the statutory amendment granting coparcenary rights to daughters. The application is dismissed.
Subsequently, another defendant in the same suit files a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on substantially the same ground, though additional procedural grounds are also mentioned. The High Court allows the second application and rejects the plaint.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. The second application is maintainable because every defendant has an independent right to seek rejection of the plaint at any stage of the suit.
B. The second application is barred by the principle of interlocutory res judicata because the substantive issue had already been adjudicated earlier in the same litigation.
C. The second application is maintainable because adding new clauses of Order VII Rule 11 CPC automatically creates a fresh cause for consideration.
D. Res judicata applies only between two separate suits and never between different stages of the same proceeding.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: B.S. LALITHA AND OTHERS VERSUS BHUVANESH AND OTHERS, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 506
Explanation: The doctrine of res judicata applies not only between separate proceedings but also between different stages of the same litigation, commonly known as “interlocutory res judicata.” Where an earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC raising the same substantive issue has already been decided, a subsequent application by another defendant on substantially identical grounds would be barred. Mere addition of new procedural grounds or filing by a different defendant does not avoid the bar of res judicata when the parties litigate under the same title and assert the same defence.
5. During a murder trial, the prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased at a crowded public place. However, several prosecution witnesses were declared hostile. While some portions of their testimony supported the prosecution, other portions created serious doubt regarding the very place and manner of occurrence of the incident. No independent witness from the crowded locality was examined. The Trial Court nevertheless convicted the accused relying on selective portions of hostile witness testimony.
Which of the following is the most legally correct proposition?
A. Once a witness is declared hostile, his entire testimony becomes inadmissible and cannot be relied upon either by the prosecution or the defence.
B. Testimony of a hostile witness may be relied upon only to the extent it supports the prosecution case and can never be used to support acquittal.
C. Conviction can validly rest on hostile witness testimony even where the prosecution fails to establish the place of occurrence and examines no independent witnesses from a busy public locality.
D. Credible portions of hostile witness testimony may be relied upon by the Court both for conviction and for discrediting the prosecution case, if such testimony creates reasonable doubt when read with other evidence on record.
Correct Answer: D
Cause Title: TALARI NARESH VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 496
Explanation: The evidence of a hostile witness is not effaced from the record merely because the witness has turned hostile. Courts may rely upon those portions of the testimony which are found credible and corroborated by other evidence. Importantly, the principle operates both ways: hostile witness testimony can support conviction where reliable, but it can equally be used to discredit the prosecution version and strengthen the case for acquittal where it creates reasonable doubt regarding foundational facts of the prosecution story. Failure to prove the place of occurrence and non-examination of independent witnesses in a crowded public area may further weaken the prosecution case.
6. A real estate developer entered into a primary development agreement with a housing society containing an arbitration clause. Subsequently, individual occupants executed separate rehabilitation agreements with the developer. The later agreements did not independently contain an arbitration clause, but stated that “all terms, conditions and clauses” of the earlier development agreement “shall form part of and bind the parties” to the later agreements.
Disputes later arose, and the occupants argued that arbitration could not be invoked because the subsequent agreements did not specifically mention the arbitration clause or expressly record an intention to arbitrate.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. Arbitration cannot be invoked unless the later agreement specifically reproduces the arbitration clause verbatim.
B. Where the later agreement incorporates the earlier agreement in its entirety and demonstrates an intention to import all clauses “body and soul,” the arbitration clause also becomes binding through incorporation by reference.
C. An arbitration clause from an earlier contract can be incorporated into a later contract only when the later agreement expressly mentions the clause number relating to arbitration.
D. Arbitration clauses are personal covenants and can never be incorporated by reference into subsequent agreements involving related transactions.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: Hirani Developers versus Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. and another Etc., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 499
Explanation: Under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitration agreement may be incorporated by reference where the subsequent contract clearly manifests an intention to adopt the terms of an earlier agreement in entirety. If the later agreement imports all terms and clauses of the earlier contract comprehensively, the arbitration clause also becomes binding even without separately reproducing or specifically referring to it. The key test is the intention of the parties and the nature of incorporation, distinguishing mere reference from complete assimilation of the earlier contract.
7. A trial court passed a decree for specific performance directing the purchaser to deposit the balance sale consideration within 30 days. The decree did not state that failure to deposit within time would automatically rescind the contract or dismiss the suit.
The judgment-debtor challenged the decree in appeal and refused to execute the sale deed. During pendency of the appeal, the decree-holder did not deposit the amount within 30 days. After dismissal of the appeal, the decree-holder filed execution proceedings and later sought permission from the same court to deposit the balance consideration. The execution court rejected the execution petition solely on the ground that the amount was not deposited within the time fixed in the decree.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. The decree automatically became inexecutable immediately after expiry of 30 days, and courts have no power to extend time thereafter.
B. Since the decree-holder failed to comply within the stipulated time, rescission of the contract is mandatory under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.
C. A decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree; therefore, the court retains jurisdiction to extend time for deposit even after expiry of the stipulated period, unless the decree itself provided automatic rescission on default.
D. Once execution proceedings are initiated, only the appellate court can extend time for deposit, and the trial court becomes functus officio.
Correct Answer: C
Case : Anand Narayan Shukla v Jagat Dhari, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 477
Explanation: Under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a decree for specific performance is treated as being in the nature of a preliminary decree. The court passing the decree retains jurisdiction to either rescind the contract or extend the time for payment/deposit even after expiry of the stipulated period. There is no automatic rescission merely because the amount was not deposited within time, unless the decree specifically states that the decree or contract shall stand rescinded on default. While exercising such discretion, courts must consider equities, conduct of parties, pendency of appeals, and whether delay can be compensated.
8. X files a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership over a property on the basis of a Will allegedly executed in his favour by Y. In the plaint, X carefully avoids mentioning that the property was originally purchased by him in Y's name to avoid legal restrictions under a special statute prohibiting such transactions. X also suppresses the fact that he is facing criminal prosecution in connection with Y's death.
The defendant files an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit is barred by law and that the plaint creates only an illusory cause of action through clever drafting. X argues that the court can look only at the formal pleadings and cannot infer any statutory bar unless expressly admitted in the plaint.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. The plaint cannot be rejected unless the defendant first files a written statement and evidence is recorded on the disputed facts.
B. The court must confine itself strictly to the literal wording of the plaint and cannot examine whether the cause of action is artificially created through drafting techniques.
C. The court may undertake a meaningful and wholesome reading of the plaint and accompanying documents to determine whether a statutory bar is concealed by clever drafting or material suppression of facts, and reject the plaint at the threshold if the suit is barred by law.
D. Suppression of material facts is relevant only for deciding interim relief and cannot form a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: MANJULA AND OTHERS VERSUS D.A. SRINIVAS, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 478
Explanation: Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court is not expected to mechanically accept the plaint merely because it is formally drafted to disclose a cause of action. The court must conduct a meaningful and substantive reading of the plaint to determine whether the suit is barred by law or whether an illusory cause of action has been created through clever drafting. Material suppression of facts that eclipses a statutory bar may itself justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold. While disputed questions of fact ordinarily require trial, the court can still examine whether the foundational claim is legally sustainable on the face of the pleadings.
9. During the pendency of a criminal appeal, the accused files an application seeking to exhibit certain bank records, income tax returns, and account opening forms without formally examining the signatories to those documents. The accused argues that all these documents already form part of the prosecution chargesheet and were relied upon during investigation.
The prosecution objects, contending that unless the signatures on those documents are formally proved through witnesses or affidavits, the documents cannot be read in evidence. The High Court accepts the prosecution's objection by relying upon provisions relating to affidavit evidence of formal witnesses.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
A. Documents can never be exhibited without formal proof of signatures, even if they already form part of the prosecution record.
B. If the genuineness of documents forming part of the prosecution record is not disputed, they may be read in evidence without formal proof of signatures; provisions relating to affidavit evidence operate in a different field.
C. Since the documents are part of the chargesheet, they automatically become substantive evidence and no objection regarding genuineness can ever be raised by the prosecution.
D. An accused cannot invoke procedural provisions relating to admission or denial of documents because such provisions are available only to the prosecution.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: R. GANESH VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 471
Explanation: The distinction lies between procedural provisions dealing with admission/denial of documentary evidence and those concerning evidence of a formal character by affidavit. Where documents already form part of the prosecution record and their genuineness is not disputed, insisting upon formal proof of signatures would defeat the object of procedural efficiency. However, the prosecution still retains the right to dispute genuineness or admissibility where legally permissible. Provisions permitting affidavit evidence of formal witnesses do not govern the separate mechanism relating to admission and exhibition of documents already on record.
10. Assertion (A): An extra-judicial confession made by an accused, which completely absolves himself while implicating co-accused persons, cannot by itself be treated as a reliable substantive piece of evidence against the co-accused, especially when they are denied the opportunity to cross-examine the maker of the statement.
Reason (R): The evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession is inherently weak, and a statement made under coercive circumstances such as mob pressure or duress loses credibility and reliability.
Choose the correct option:
A. Both Assertion and Reason are true, and Reason is the correct explanation of Assertion.
B. Both Assertion and Reason are true, but Reason is not the correct explanation of Assertion.
C. Assertion is true, but Reason is false.
D. Assertion is false, but Reason is true.
Correct Answer: A
Cause Title: Papan Sarkar @ Pranab Versus State of West Bengal (with connected case), Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 532
Explanation: An exculpatory statement by an accused that shifts blame entirely onto co-accused is considered unreliable because it lacks self-inculpatory content and deprives co-accused of the safeguard of cross-examination. Courts also treat extra-judicial confessions as weak evidence requiring strict scrutiny. When such statements are made under coercive circumstances, including mob pressure or threat, their credibility becomes further doubtful. Therefore, the Reason correctly explains why such statements cannot safely form the basis of conviction.
Statement Of Accused Absolving Himself & Incriminating Co-Accused Not Reliable : Supreme Court