Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. The Supreme Court cannot convert the accused acquittal to conviction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Test out the validity of the statement with the following options.a. The Supreme Court couldn't interfere with the order of acquittal.b. It is impermissible for the Supreme Court to convert the order of acquittal to conviction.c. It is permissible for the Supreme Court to convert the acquittal to conviction if the acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds and results in a travesty of justice.d. Both (a) and (b)Answer: Option (c)Recently, the Supreme Court observed that while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution it can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.The Supreme Court does not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal except when the prosecution's case proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.If Acquittal Is Based On Irrelevant Grounds, Supreme Court Obligated To Interfere Under Article 136: Supreme CourtQ 2. Recently, in Sita Soren v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court overturned its previous ruling in the PV Narasimha Rao Case. What did the Supreme Court held in Sita Soren's Case?a. Receiving Bribery in contemplation of a vote or speech is protected by parliamentary privileges guaranteed under the Constitution.b. Receiving Bribery in contemplation of a vote or speech is not protected by parliamentary privileges guaranteed under the Constitution.c. A member of parliament or the state legislature cannot claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment which held that members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.The Constitution Bench in Sita Soren's Case held that a member of parliament or the state legislature cannot claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court by virtue of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.Bribery Not Protected By Legislative Privileges; No Immunity For MPs/MLAs Taking Bribe For Vote/Speech In Legislature: Supreme CourtQ 3. As per Order 8 Rules 5 & 8 of CPC, is it mandatory for the defendant to give para-wise specific denial to allegations levied in the plaintiff's plaint to avoid admission of allegations made in the plaint?a. No, it is not mandatory to give para wise reply to the plaint in the written statement.b. No, an evasive denial can also be made in the written statement.c. Yes, if para-wise specific denial to the allegation is not made then the allegations in the plaint are deemed to be admitted against the defendant. d. Both (a) and (b)Answer: Option (c)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the failure of the defendant to give para-wise specific denial against the claim made by the plaintiff would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.Written Statement Must Have Para-Wise Reply To Plaint; Allegations Deemed To Be Admitted Unless Specifically Denied: Supreme CourtQ 4. Can a Plaintiff seek partition of a property based on the registered partition deed that does not find mention in the plaintiff's pleadings? a. Yes, the plaintiff can seek partition even if the partition deed isn't mentioned in the pleading.b. No, the plaintiff cannot seek partition based on the partition deed that was not part of the pleadings.c. The plaintiff cannot seek partition because of the settled principle of law that no evidence could be led beyond the pleadings.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the evidence that was not a part of the pleadings couldn't be led in the trial.No Evidence Could Be Led Beyond Pleadings: Supreme CourtQ 5. Recently, in one of the following cases, the Supreme Court mulls guidelines to strengthen & streamline the functioning of Bar Associations across the country. a. A. Mohondoss v. Registrar General & Ors.b. In Re: Strengthening of the Institution of Bar Associations.c. Both (a) and (b)d. None of the above.Answer: Option (c)Explanation: In a recent development, the Supreme Court in the case of A. Mohondoss v. Registrar General & Ors. has taken up the issue of strengthening and enhancing the overall functioning of Bar Associations across the country. However, the Supreme Court changed the case title that shall now be "In Re: Strengthening of the Institution of Bar Associations."Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines To Strengthen & Streamline Functioning Of Bar Associations Across CountryQ 6. An Investigating Officer is accused of wrongful arrest, however, the High Court granted bail. In light of the statement state whether the standard of granting bail to the investigating officer differs from granting bail to a layperson.a....

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags