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

Q1. Which of the following is true with respect to a daughter's right of inheritance? a. A sole daughter will inherit to her intestate father's self-acquired property who dies prior to the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 b. A sole daughter will not inherit her intestate father's self-acquired property who dies prior to the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 c. Collaterals would be preferred over the sole daughter of such intestate father d. Both b and c Answer: b [A sole daughter will not inherit her intestate father's self-acquired property who dies prior to the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956] Explanation: The Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v Ponnusamy and Ors., has held that even in cases prior to enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (1956 Act), if a Hindu male dies intestate leaving behind self-acquired property, such self-acquired property would devolve by inheritance and its devolution shall not be by way of survivorship and the daughter of such a Hindu male would be entitled to inherit such self-acquired property Q2. The Supreme Court in 2022 held that Automative Research Institute of India is: a. Is a state under Article 12, Constitution of India b. Is not a state under Article 12, Constitution of India as there is no deep and pervasive control of the government c. Is not a state under Article 12, Constitution of India as there is no element of public duty involved d. None of the Above Answer: b [is not a state under Article 12, Constitution of India as there is no deep and pervasive control of Government] Explanation: The Supreme Court held in Kishor Madhukar v. Automotive Research Association of India that the institute is not a state because the Memorandum indicates that it enjoys significant and substantive freedom and independence. The Association is not under the control of the central government and the supervision is limited and confined to specific aspects, which do not have the effect of deep and pervasive control of the Central Government Q3. In which of the following landmark cases, it was held by the Supreme Court that vaccinates mandates are unconstitutional and that no one can be forced to get vaccinated on account of his right to bodily integrity? a. Jacob Puliyel v. UOI b. Manoj v. State of MP c. Kaku Subba v. UOI d. None of the above Answer: a [Jacob Puliyel v. UOI] Explanation: In the case of Jacob Puliyel v. UOI, Supreme Court of India held that bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated. Q4. Supreme Court in the recent case of Buddhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal laid down detailed guidelines in context of a. Sex Workers b. Old-age home inmates c. Army Pensioners d. Orphan Children Answer: a [Sex-workers] Explanation: In the aforementioned case, the SC issued certain guidelines for protection of sexual workers, including: Sex workers who are a victim of sexual assault should be provided with all facilities available to a survivor of sexual assault Whenever there is a raid on any brothel, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalized or harassed or victimized. The Press Council of India should be urged to issue appropriate guidelines for the media to take utmost care not to reveal the identities of sex workers, during arrest, raid and rescue operations. Measures that sex workers employ for their health and safety (e.g., use of condoms, etc.) must neither be construed as offences nor seen as evidence of commission of an offence. No child of a sex worker should be separated from the mother merely on the ground that she is in the sex trade and also access to free legal aid. Q5. In which of the following landmark judgments the Supreme Court of India has held that Section 124A, IPC, 1860 to be kept in abeyance till Union Government reconsiders it? a. SG Vombatkere v. UOI b. Madhu Dravida v. UOI c. Pulliyel v. State of MP d. Pawan Kumar v. UOI Answer: a [SG Vombatkere v. UOI] Explanation: Supreme Court of India in this case held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused Q6. Who among the following Delhi HC judges held in the case of RIT Foundation v. UOI that Exception 2 to Section 375, IPC, 1860 is unconstitutional? a. Justice Rajiv Shakdher b. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia c. Justice Hari Shankar d. Justice CT Ravikumar Answer: a [Justice Rajiv Shakder] Explanation: Justice...

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

Paras Ahuja

Tags