Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
1. Two groups are involved in cross-allegations arising from incidents on the same night. In the first case, Group A alleges that members of Group B trespassed into its house and assaulted its members. In a separate complaint, Group B alleges that members of Group A trespassed into its house and assaulted its members. Both incidents occurred within a short time of each other, and the same persons are accused in the respective proceedings. One case is triable by a Court of Session, while the other is a complaint case before a Magistrate. Which is the most appropriate legal position under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
A. A joint trial is mandatory because cross-cases involving the same accused persons must always be tried together to prevent conflicting judgments.
B. A joint trial is justified because incidents occurring on the same night necessarily form part of the same transaction, irrespective of the places of occurrence and the victims.
C. Separate trials are the general rule under Section 218 CrPC. A joint trial may be ordered only where the statutory conditions are satisfied, and temporal proximity and identity of the accused, by themselves, do not establish that the incidents form part of the same transaction.
D. A joint trial is prohibited whenever one proceeding is triable by a Court of Session and the other is a complaint case before a Magistrate, irrespective of the applicable statutory provisions.
Answer: C
DANISH & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UP & ANR., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1065
Explanation: Section 218 CrPC lays down the general rule of separate charges and separate trials for distinct offences, subject to statutory exceptions. The court must examine whether the conditions permitting a joint trial are fulfilled and exercise its discretion judicially, taking into account possible prejudice to the accused and the likelihood of delay or wastage of judicial time. In the given facts, the incidents occurred at different residences and involved different victims. Their proximity in time and the involvement of the same accused persons do not, by themselves, establish that they formed part of the same transaction. The distinct nature and hierarchy of the proceedings may also weigh against consolidation.
2. A university removes an employee from service following a disciplinary inquiry. The employee challenges the removal under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Single Judge finds that the inquiry findings are perverse and unsupported by evidence and interferes with the punishment. On appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the Division Bench reappreciates the evidence, adopts a different view, and restores the removal order without identifying any glaring error or cogent ground for interference.
Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the law governing the Division Bench's jurisdiction?
A. The Division Bench may reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own view whenever it considers the disciplinary authority's decision more appropriate, since a Letters Patent Appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.
B. The Division Bench cannot interfere with the Single Judge's decision merely because another view is possible; interference requires cogent grounds, such as demonstrably erroneous findings or a glaring mistake apparent on the record, particularly where the writ court's decision is just and reasonable.
C. Once a Single Judge exercises jurisdiction under Article 226, the Division Bench has no jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to examine the decision, even if it contains a manifest error of law.
D. The Division Bench must restore the disciplinary authority's decision whenever the Single Judge interferes with a punishment, unless the employee proves mala fides on the part of the disciplinary authority.
Answer: B
R. SARAVANAN VERSUS PERIYAR UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REGISTRAR & ORS., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1068
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the Letters Patent Bench cannot interfere with a reasoned writ court decision merely because it takes a different view of the facts or law. Appellate interference must be supported by cogent grounds, such as findings that are demonstrably erroneous or a glaring mistake apparent on the record. However, this does not eliminate the Division Bench's appellate jurisdiction; it limits the grounds on which that jurisdiction should be exercised in the circumstances described.
3. A plaintiff relies on a Will to establish his claim over a property. The defendant disputes the genuineness of the testator's signature and applies under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, for examination by a handwriting expert. The trial court rejects the application, holding that it can compare the disputed signature with admitted signatures under Section 72. The High Court reverses this decision, reasoning that expert evidence is essential whenever the genuineness of a signature is disputed.
Which statement most accurately reflects the legal position?
A. The High Court is correct because a court cannot compare disputed handwriting or signatures without obtaining expert opinion.
B. The trial court must refer the signature to an expert whenever the opposing party disputes its genuineness, regardless of whether the court can independently compare it.
C. The court may compare the disputed signature with an admitted or proved signature under Section 72, and expert opinion is not mandatory in every case; the court may seek expert assistance where appropriate, particularly if it has doubts or the writing is smudgy, vague or very light.
D. Once a party disputes the genuineness of a Will, the burden of determining its authenticity shifts entirely to the handwriting expert, whose opinion binds the court.
Answer: C
GOPAL PATHAK VERSUS NITIN ALIAS PAPPU & ANR., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1018
Explanation: Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, permits the court to compare disputed handwriting, signatures or finger impressions with those admitted or proved to its satisfaction. Expert opinion under Section 39 is relevant but not invariably essential. The court cannot avoid its own duty of comparison merely by stating that it is not an expert. However, it retains discretion to obtain expert assistance when circumstances warrant it.
4. Assertion (A): The accused's failure to explain the presence of articles allegedly seized from his residence cannot, by itself, be treated as an incriminating circumstance when the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure in accordance with law.
Reason (R): Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 100 CrPC automatically invalidates every search and seizure conducted in breach of those requirements.
Choose the correct answer:
A. Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
B. Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
C. Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R) is false.
D. Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true.
Answer: C
RAMKRUSHNA PRAHLLAD DONGARDIVE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1032
Explanation: The prosecution bears the burden of proving the alleged seizure. If the seizure is not duly proved, the accused's failure to explain the presence of the articles cannot independently be used as an incriminating circumstance against him.
However, non-compliance with Section 100 CrPC does not automatically invalidate every search or seizure. The irregularity must be assessed along with the other circumstances affecting the reliability of the prosecution case.
Procedural Violation Will Not Vitiate Seizure But Can Affect Evidentiary Value : Supreme Court
5. A Hindu woman inherited a limited interest in agricultural land before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the Act came into force, she continued to possess the land and was recognised as a Bhumidhar under the applicable land-reform legislation. She died in 1973, leaving behind two sons from a subsequent marriage. The heirs of her first husband contend that succession must be governed by the law applicable when she originally acquired the limited interest.
Which of the following is the most appropriate legal position?
A. The woman's interest necessarily remains limited because the nature of the estate is determined exclusively by the law in force when she inherited the property.
B. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, may enlarge her limited interest into absolute ownership, and succession must be determined by applying the relevant succession provisions and personal law applicable at the time of her death.
C. Section 14(2) invariably governs property inherited by a Hindu woman before 1956, preventing the conversion of any limited interest into absolute ownership.
D. The heirs of the first husband necessarily succeed to the property because agricultural land is exclusively governed by land-reform legislation, irrespective of the Hindu Succession Act.
Answer: B
Sultan Singh (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. The Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1037
Explanation: Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, generally converts property possessed by a Hindu female into her absolute property where the statutory requirements are satisfied. Section 14(2) provides a limited exception for property acquired under certain instruments that prescribe a restricted estate.
Hindu Widow's Limited Interest Became Absolute Under 1956 Succession Act : Supreme Court
6. A plaintiff files a suit seeking declaration of title and possession over a property. During the proceedings, he discovers a compromise decree in a separate suit that allegedly affects a portion of the same property. He seeks to amend the plaint to challenge the decree. The defendant opposes the amendment on the ground that it would enlarge the scope of the original suit and introduce additional legal issues.
Which of the following statements best reflects the principles governing the amendment of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
(A) An amendment must be rejected if it introduces additional facts or legal issues that were not part of the original plaint.
(B) An amendment may be permitted where the proposed pleadings have a direct nexus with the existing controversy, even if they enlarge the factual and legal issues requiring adjudication, provided the applicable legal requirements are satisfied.
(C) An amendment challenging a decree passed in a separate suit must invariably be rejected because it necessarily introduces an independent cause of action.
(D) Once an amendment is permitted, the court is deemed to have accepted the amended averments as true and granted the consequential substantive relief.
Answer: (B)
HARAMANI SAHOO AND OTHERS VERSUS LALITA NAYAK AND OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
Explanation: Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court may permit amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. The mere enlargement of factual or legal issues does not, by itself, establish that the amendment fundamentally changes the nature and character of the suit. The court must examine the connection between the proposed amendment and the existing controversy.
However, where the trial has commenced, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 requires the court to be satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
7. The police, after investigating a murder case, submit a closure report stating that no offence is made out. The informant files a protest petition. On examining the police report and statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate finds sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the accused and takes cognizance of the offence.
The accused challenges the order, arguing that statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC cannot be relied upon by a court for any purpose.
Which of the following statements is legally correct?
(A) The Magistrate cannot take cognizance once the police have submitted a closure report, unless the police conduct further investigation.
(B) Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC are inadmissible for every purpose, including consideration at the stage of taking cognizance.
(C) The Magistrate may take cognizance despite a closure report after independently considering the material available, including statements under Section 161 CrPC, but such statements cannot be used as substantive evidence at trial.
(D) The Magistrate can take cognizance only if the informant's protest petition is treated as a complaint and the informant independently proves the allegations before the Magistrate.
Answer: (C)
Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary Versus State of Bihar & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1043
Explanation:: A Magistrate is not bound to accept a police closure report and may take cognizance upon independently considering the material collected during investigation. Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC may be considered at the cognizance stage as part of the material accompanying the police report, but they are not substantive evidence at trial and their use during trial is subject to the statutory restrictions under Section 162 CrPC.
8. A and B enter into a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. Subsequently, A retires from the partnership under a deed whose validity is disputed. C and D are inducted as partners under a later arrangement, acquiring rights in an asset belonging to the partnership. In arbitration proceedings concerning the validity of A's retirement deed, the decision may substantially affect the rights of C and D, although they never signed the original partnership deed.
Which of the following statements is legally correct?
(A) C and D cannot be impleaded in the arbitration proceedings under any circumstances because they did not sign the original partnership deed.
(B) C and D can be impleaded only if they execute a fresh arbitration agreement with A and B after the dispute arises.
(C) C and D may be treated as parties to the arbitration agreement if, upon a holistic examination of the facts, their relationship with the signatories, conduct and interests in the subject matter establish that they are veritable parties to the dispute.
(D) C and D automatically become parties to the arbitration agreement merely because they subsequently acquire an interest in the partnership asset.
Answer: (C)
Hemant D. Shah HUF & Anr. Versus Chittaranjan D. Shah HUF & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1045
Explanation: Under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., the absence of a signature on an arbitration agreement is not, by itself, conclusive in determining whether a non-signatory can be bound by or included in arbitration proceedings.
Non-Signatories Can Be Joined In Arbitration If Dispute Affects Their Rights: Supreme Court
9. In a murder trial based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime. During examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused gives an unsatisfactory explanation regarding one circumstance. What is the correct legal position?
A. The court may convict because an unsatisfactory explanation cures the missing links in the prosecution case.
B. The court may draw an adverse inference sufficient by itself to establish guilt.
C. The court must disregard every statement made by the accused during examination.
D. The court cannot use the explanation to complete a chain that the prosecution has failed to establish independently.
Answer: D
SANTOSH GURUNG VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
Explanation: The accused's answers to the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot fill gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. The Court said that only when the accused fails to explain the incriminating material against him can the Court draw an adverse inference.
10. A agrees to sell his immovable property to B under an agreement to sell. No registered sale deed is executed in B's favour. Subsequently, A executes a registered sale deed in favour of C, who asserts ownership and produces the deed in court. B files a suit seeking only possession, relying on the agreement to sell. Which is the most appropriate legal principle?
A. B can obtain possession solely by proving that the agreement was executed earlier than C's sale deed
B. C's registered sale deed conclusively defeats every possible claim B may have
C. B must establish the appropriate substantive relief against the competing title, such as specific performance or a challenge to C's deed, as applicable
D. The agreement to sell automatically transfers ownership to B
Answer: B
SMT. RANO SINGH AND OTHERS VERSUS SH. GURBAX SINGH (D) TH LRS AND OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1081
Explanation: The Supreme Court has held that a suit simpliciter for recovery of possession without seeking a cancellation of a sale deed would not be maintainable when the plaintiff's title is disputed. According to the Court, when the plaintiff's title was disputed by the defendant by cogent evidence, then the proper remedy for the plaintiff would be to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in the defendant's favour along with the suit for recovery of possession, and not just a suit simpliciter seeking recovery of possession.