Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Yash Mittal
3 May 2026 5:15 PM IST
1. A social activist files an application before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking registration of an FIR against a public servant for alleged hate speech under Sections 153A and 295A IPC. The Magistrate refuses to direct registration of FIR on the ground that prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 CrPC has not been obtained.
Which of the following statements is correct?
(A) Prior sanction under Sections 196/197 CrPC is mandatory even at the stage of ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
(B) A Magistrate cannot order registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC without first taking cognizance of the offence.
(C) Prior sanction under Sections 196/197 CrPC is required only at the stage of taking cognizance and not at the stage of directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
(D) The Magistrate has no power to direct registration of FIR in cases involving public servants.
Answer: (C)
Explanation: The Supreme Court has clarified that the power exercised by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC is at the pre-cognizance stage. Therefore, the requirement of prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 CrPC applies only at the stage of taking cognizance, not at the stage of directing registration of FIR or investigation.
Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 (and connected cases), Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437
2. A woman goes missing and is later found murdered. During the investigation, four accused persons were arrested. While in police custody, all four accused jointly state that they can show the place where the victim was murdered and her body was burnt.
The police take them to a forest area. One accused first points out the location. Thereafter, the remaining three accused, one by one, also point to the same place and claim that the murder and burning occurred there. No new material object or fact is discovered based on the subsequent statements of the other accused.
At trial, the prosecution seeks to rely on these disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
(A) All statements are admissible since joint disclosures are expressly permitted under Section 27.
(B) Only the first accused's statement is admissible; subsequent statements are inadmissible as there cannot be rediscovery of the same fact.
(C) All statements are admissible because they corroborate each other and strengthen the prosecution's case.
(D) None of the statements are admissible because Section 27 does not apply to joint disclosures at all.
Answer: (B)
Explanation: Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only that portion of the information given by an accused in custody is admissible which distinctly relates to the fact discovered. The Supreme Court has clarified that Joint or simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible. However, admissibility depends on whether each statement leads to a distinct discovery of fact. Once a fact is already discovered based on the statement of one accused, subsequent statements pointing to the same fact do not qualify as “discovery.”
Cause Title: ANAND JAKKAPPA PUJARI @GADDADAR VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (with connected case), Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 426
3. A is arrested for an offence under the State Excise Act for illegal possession of liquor. The offence is non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years. The Sessions Court grants bail to A but imposes conditions under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), including that A shall not commit a similar offence.
Subsequently, A is again found involved in a similar offence. The State files an application for cancellation of bail, and the High Court cancels A's bail solely on the ground that he violated the conditions imposed under Section 480(3) BNSS. A challenges this order before the Supreme Court.
Which of the following is the most correct legal position?
(A) The High Court is correct, as violation of any bail condition justifies cancellation of bail.
(B) The High Court is correct, since repeat offences always justify cancellation of bail in non-bailable offences.
(C) The High Court erred, as conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS cannot be imposed for offences punishable up to 7 years, hence their violation cannot justify cancellation of bail.
(D) The High Court erred only because cancellation of bail requires a trial, not interim assessment.
Answer: (C)
Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 480(3) BNSS applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or more (or specified serious offences). For offences punishable up to 7 years, such conditions cannot be imposed at all. Therefore, if such conditions were wrongly imposed, their violation cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail. The High Court's cancellation of bail solely on this basis was therefore legally unsustainable.
Cause Title: NARAYAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 426
4. Ramesh is accused in a private complaint case involving offences of cheating and forgery. The Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to him. Apprehending arrest, Ramesh files an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court. The High Court rejects his application and directs him to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail. Ramesh challenges this direction before the Supreme Court.
Which of the following statements correctly reflects the legal position?
(A) The High Court is empowered to direct surrender while rejecting anticipatory bail to ensure the presence of the accused.
(B) The High Court can direct surrender only if the offence is non-bailable.
(C) The High Court has no jurisdiction to direct the accused to surrender while rejecting anticipatory bail.
(D) Such a direction is valid only if the Magistrate has already issued a non-bailable warrant.
Answer: (C)
Explanation: The Supreme Court has clarified that while rejecting an anticipatory bail application, the court cannot compel the accused to surrender before the trial court. Such a direction is without jurisdiction.
Cause Title – Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 419
Court Cannot Direct Accused To Surrender While Rejecting Anticipatory Bail : Supreme Court
5. A private complaint is filed before a Magistrate alleging cheating against A. The Magistrate takes cognizance and, instead of immediately issuing process, directs an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC through the police. During the pendency of this inquiry, A apprehends arrest and files an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court rejects the application and directs A to surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail.
Which of the following statements is legally correct?
A. The police can arrest A during the Section 202 inquiry, hence anticipatory bail was rightly sought.
B. The Sessions Court was justified in directing A to surrender and seek regular bail.
C. Once a complaint is filed, arrest is automatic unless anticipatory bail is granted.
D. Police cannot arrest A during Section 202 inquiry, and the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to direct surrender.
Answer : (D)
Explanation: The Court said that once a process is issued, the litigant needs to only comply with the process, as no arrest can take place in a complaint case unless a non-bailable warrant is issued to effect process.
Cause Title: OM PRAKASH CHHAWNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHABNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHAWNIKA VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.,Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 419
6. A complaint is filed before a Judicial Magistrate in Indore alleging cheating against X. During preliminary examination under Section 223 BNSS, it is revealed that X resides permanently in Jaipur, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Without conducting any further inquiry or directing investigation, the Magistrate issues summons to X.
X challenges the summons before the High Court.
Which of the following is the most legally correct position?
(A) The Magistrate acted correctly as issuance of summons is discretionary once prima facie case exists.
(B) The Magistrate erred, as he must first conduct an inquiry or direct investigation under Section 225 BNSS before issuing process against an accused residing outside jurisdiction.
(C) The summons is valid because territorial jurisdiction is irrelevant at the stage of issuing process.
(D) The Magistrate must transfer the complaint to a court having jurisdiction before taking cognizance.
Answer: (B)
Explanation: Under Section 225 BNSS, when the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to either: conduct an inquiry himself, or direct an investigation before issuing process. Failure to comply with this requirement vitiates the issuance of summons.
Cause Title: RAJEEV MEHTA @ RAJIV KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA VERSUS PARAM BIR SINGH, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 411
7. A filed a suit for specific performance against B regarding an agreement to sell land. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that A failed to prove readiness and willingness. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reappreciated the evidence and decreed specific performance in favour of A, recording findings that A had proved payment and readiness.
B then filed a second appeal before the High Court under Section 100 CPC, contending that the findings of the First Appellate Court were erroneous as they were based on improper appreciation of evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose.
Which of the following is the correct legal position?
(A) The High Court can reappreciate evidence in second appeal if the findings of fact are erroneous.
(B) The High Court must interfere whenever findings of fact appear incorrect, even without a substantial question of law.
(C) The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact in second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises.
(D) The High Court has unrestricted power to reassess facts under Section 100 CPC.
Answer: (C)
Explanatoin: Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal is confined strictly to substantial questions of law. It is a settled principle that findings of fact, even if erroneous, cannot be reopened or disturbed unless they are shown to be perverse or give rise to a substantial question of law.
Cause Title: RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS BHAVNA SETH & ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 402
8. A dispute arises between A Ltd. and B Ltd., and the matter is referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. During the arbitral proceedings, B Ltd. raises a plea under Section 16 challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, contending that the arbitration agreement is invalid.
The arbitral tribunal rejects the plea and decides to proceed with the arbitration. Aggrieved by this decision, B Ltd. immediately files an application under Section 34 before the District Court challenging the rejection of its jurisdictional objection. The District Court dismisses the application on merits. B Ltd. then files an appeal under Section 37 before the High Court.
Which of the following is the most appropriate answer?
(A) The application under Section 34 is maintainable, and the High Court can decide the jurisdictional issue under Section 37.
(B) The arbitral tribunal's decision under Section 16 can be immediately challenged under Section 34, but not under Section 37.
(C) The District Court must refer the matter back to the arbitral tribunal for reconsideration of jurisdiction.
(D) The application under Section 34 is not maintainable at this stage, and the jurisdictional objection can be raised only after the final award.
Answer: (D)
Explanation: Under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitral tribunal has the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction (principle of kompetenz-kompetenz).
If the tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, the aggrieved party cannot immediately challenge this decision under Section 34 or Section 37. Instead, the party must wait until the final arbitral award is passed, and then raise the jurisdictional issue in a Section 34 application challenging the award.
Cause Title: M/s. MCM Worldwide Private Limited versus M/s. Construction Industry Development Council, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 440
9. A files a suit for specific performance against B before a Civil Court. Despite proper service of summons, B fails to appear, and the suit proceeds ex parte. The Trial Court, without framing any issues or identifying “points for determination,” dismisses the suit on the ground that A failed to prove B's title over the property. A challenges the decision before the appellate court, contending that he was never put to notice regarding the requirement to prove B's title.
Which of the following is the most correct legal position?
(A) The Trial Court acted correctly, as in ex parte suits framing of issues is not mandatory under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC.
(B) The dismissal is valid since the burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff, irrespective of framing of issues.
(C) The judgment is vitiated due to failure to identify and decide “points for determination,” causing prejudice to the plaintiff.
(D) The appellate court must remand the matter only if fraud or misrepresentation is established.
Answer: (C)
Explanation: Although formal framing of issues may not be mandatory in ex parte proceedings as per Order XIV Rule 1(6) CPC, the Court must still identify “points for determination” and give reasoned findings in compliance with Order XX Rule 4 CPC.
Cause Title: PRAMOD SHROFF VERSUS MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 384
10. A civil dispute between A (landowner) and B (developer) was settled by a compromise decree. During execution proceedings, the Executing Court determined compensation payable to A at ₹1,000 per sq. ft.
Aggrieved, B filed a petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, after re-evaluating the material evidence and market rates, reduced the compensation to ₹500 per sq. ft., holding that the Executing Court's assessment was excessive.
A challenges this order before the Supreme Court.
Which of the following is the MOST CORRECT legal position?
(A) The High Court acted correctly, as Article 227 permits re-evaluation of evidence to ensure justice.
(B) The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, as it cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence under Article 227.
(C) The High Court has unlimited supervisory powers and can substitute its own findings for that of subordinate courts.
(D) The High Court can modify findings only if both parties consent to such re-evaluation.
Answer : (B)
Explanation: The Supreme Court has clarified that Article 227 confers only supervisory jurisdiction, not appellate power. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or reassess facts, cannot substitute its own view merely because another view is possible, and can interfere only in cases of jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality.
Cause Title: NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR. VERSUS B. GURAPPA NAIDU & ORS., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 445
Supreme Court Summarises Principles For Exercise Of Article 227 Jurisdiction