Judicial Service Exams: Question And Answers(MCQs) Based On Latest Judgements

1. In which of the following cases a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court passed a split verdict in the Karnataka Hijab Ban matter? (a) Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (b) Benazeer Heena v. Union of India (c) Hamidunnisha v. State of Karnataka (d) None of the above Ans.: (a) [Supreme Court passed a split verdict in a batch of appeals challenging restriction on Muslim girl students wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka. Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the 26 appeals filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that hijab was not an essential practice of Islam and allowed the ban on wearing headscarf in educational institutions in the State. Expressing the divergence in his opinion, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment and held that the entire concept of essential religious practice was not essential to the dispute] 2. In the Hijab Case, who among the following Judges held that 'permitting one religious community to wear their religious symbols would be antithesis to secularism'? (a) Justice Hemant Gupta (b) Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia (c) Both (a) and (b) (d) None of the above Ans.: (a) [Sitting in a division bench that passed a split verdict in the Hijab case (Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka), Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the restriction on the ground that Secularism is applicable to all citizens, therefore, permitting one religious community to wear their religious symbols would be antithesis to secularism. Justice Gupta held that the religious belief cannot be carried to a secular school maintained out of State funds. It is open to the students to carry their faith in a school which permits them to wear Hijab or any other mark, may be tilak, which can be identified to a person holding a particular religious belief but the State is within its jurisdiction to direct that the apparent symbols of religious beliefs cannot be carried to school maintained by the State from the State funds. Thus, the practice of wearing hijab could be restricted by the State in terms of the Government Order.] 3. In the Hijab Case, who among the following Judges held that, "asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity"? (a) Justice Hemant Gupta (b) Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia (c) Both (a) and (b) (d) None of the above Ans.: (b) [Sitting in a division bench that passed a split verdict in the Hijab case (Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka), Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment and opined that asking the girl student to remove the hijab at the school gate "is clearly violative of the Fundamental Right given to her under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.] 4. Which of the following state/s in India, for the first time, introduced the Hijab Ban in educational institutions? (a) Uttar Pradesh (b) Gujarat (c) Karnataka (d) (b) and (c) Ans.: (c) 5. In the Hijab Case, who among the following Judges held that wearing Hijab is an essential religious practice (ERP) of Islamic faith? (a) Justice Hemant Gupta (b) Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia (c) Both (a) and (b) (d) None of the above Ans.: (d) [Though the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the Hijab ban case, both the judges of the bench did not decide the question whether the wearing of hijab is considered as an essential religious practice. The Karnataka High Court had held that hijab was not an essential religious practice of Islam and hence the petitioners could not claim protection under Article 25 of the Constitution] 6. Supreme Court has recently held that: (a) Married daughter is a dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, eligible for compassionate appointment (b) Married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, is not eligible for compassionate appointment (c) Ans (a) is partly correct (d) Ans (b) is partly correct Ans.: (b) [Supreme Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate held that a married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, is not eligible for compassionate appointment.] 7. Can a power of attorney holder continue to represent party if he/she got enrolled as an advocate during the proceedings? (a) Yes (b) No (c) Depends (d) None of the above Ans.: (a) [In S Ramachandra Rao v. S Nagabhushana Rao, Supreme Court observed that Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961does not create a bar for a General Power of Attorney holder to appear on behalf of a...

Judicial Service Exams: Question And Answers(MCQs) Based On Latest Judgements

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags