Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
15 Feb 2025 2:26 PM
Live Law brings to you interesting questions on recent important Supreme Court Judgments for judicial services and other law competitive examinations. Here are the ten most important questions :
Q 1. Under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, what constitutes proper compliance with the requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of their arrest?
A) Informing the arrestee's relative about the arrest and its reasons.
B) Recording the reasons for arrest in the arrest memo, remand report, or case diary.
C) Personally and effectively communicating the grounds of arrest to the arrestee.
D) Providing the grounds of arrest in a later court hearing.
Answer: Option (C)
Case Title: VIHAAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR, Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169
Explanation: The Supreme Court has clarified that merely informing a relative or recording the grounds in official documents does not fulfill the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). The arrested person must be directly informed of the grounds of arrest in a clear and effective manner.
Q 2. Decide when a repealing Act is not required to obtain fresh Presidential Assent under Article 254 of the Constitution.
A) When the original Act had received Presidential Assent, and the repealing Act alters the law significantly.
B) When the repealing Act is intended to correct flaws in the old law without contradicting prior judicial rulings.
C) When the repealing Act establishes an entirely new legal framework in place of the old law.
D) When the original Act was a Central law, and the repealing Act is passed by a State Legislature.
Answer: Option (B)
Case Title: M/S S.R.S. TRAVELS BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.T. RAJASHEKAR VERSUS THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION WORKERS & ORS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 166
Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified that a repealing Act does not require fresh Presidential Assent if it falls within the legislative competence of the State and is meant to rectify the shortcomings of the prior law rather than introducing a new legal framework. The mere fact that the original Act had Presidential Assent does not automatically mandate the same for the repealing Act.
Q 3. A woman, without obtaining a formal divorce from her first husband, marries a second time with a man who is fully aware of her first marriage. They live together, have a child, and later separate due to disputes. The woman seeks maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband. The second husband opposes the claim, arguing that she is not legally his "wife" as her first marriage was never legally dissolved. Decide whether the woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband.
A) The woman is not entitled to maintenance as her second marriage is void due to the subsistence of her first marriage.
B) The woman is entitled to maintenance since her second husband knew about her first marriage and lived with her as husband and wife.
C) The woman can claim maintenance only if she proves that her first husband is unable to provide for her.
D) The second husband is liable for maintenance only if he legally adopted their child.
Answer: Option (B)
Case Title: SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. VERSUS MOODUDULA SRINIVAS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Explanation: The Supreme Court ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. The Court clarified that a formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory. If the woman and her first husband mutually agreed to separate, the absence of a legal divorce does not prevent her from seeking maintenance from her second husband.
Q 4. Flat purchasers challenged the builder's forfeiture of 20% of the basic sale price as earnest money as per the Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) following their cancellation of the flat booking. They contended that the 20% forfeiture was arbitrary and excessive amounting to a penalty for 'breach of contract' under Section 74 of the Contract Act. Decide the most appropriate option.
A) Forfeiture of earnest money is always considered a penalty, regardless of the amount.
B) Any forfeiture of more than 10% of the BSP is deemed excessive and arbitrary.
C) Earnest money can be forfeited, but the amount must not be so excessive that it becomes a penalty for a breach of contract.
D) The Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) did not mention any forfeiture clause, making the builder's claim invalid.
Answer: Option (C)
Case Title: GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED VERSUS ANIL KARLEKAR & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 150
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that while forfeiture of reasonable earnest money is permissible, it must not be excessive or punitive under Section 74 of the Contract Act. In this case, the Court ruled that 20% forfeiture of the BSP was excessive and amounted to a penalty, while 10% was reasonable and enforceable. The Court emphasized that forfeiture should act as a security for contract performance, not as a punitive measure.
Q 5. It is a settled proposition of law that a Magistrate should not mechanically order an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC without judicial application of mind. Under the newly introduced Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, what additional safeguards have been introduced before a Magistrate can direct the registration of an FIR?
A) The complainant must submit an affidavit and a copy of their application to the Superintendent of Police if their FIR is refused.
B) The Magistrate must conduct a preliminary inquiry before ordering an FIR.
C) The Magistrate must consider the police officer's reasons for refusing to register the FIR before passing an order.
D) All of the above.
Answer: Option (D)
Case Title: OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139
Explanation: The Court highlighted three new safeguards in BNSS Section 175(3) [absent in Cr.P.C. 156(3)]: 1) mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police (with copy and affidavit); 2) Magistrate's power of inquiry; and 3) consideration of the police's refusal to register the FIR. These codify existing safeguards against misuse of magisterial powers.
Q 6. An incident happened inside the private chamber of the Revenue Inspector-complainant in the government office, where the accused upon knowing the caste of the complainant remarked “if you people are appointed in Government service you all will do like this only…”. Thereafter, he scolded the complainant calling his caste name, and insulted him using vulgar words. Following the incident, other colleagues of the complainant came, pacified the accused, and took him away. Decide whether the act of the accused would be covered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A) Yes, there was caste-based abuse as the accused abused the complainant in front of the complainant's colleague coming within the public view.
B) No, because no one was present when the accused abused the complainant inside the four walls of his private chamber.
C) The act of the accused abusing the complainant in his caste name was done privately not qualifying the public view.
D). Both (B) and (C)
Answer: Option (D)
Case Title: Karuppudayar v. State, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 133
Explanation: The Supreme Court ruled that for an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) to be made out, caste-based abuse must occur in public view. If the abuse happens inside a private office or chamber, where no public members are present, it does not constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act. The Court referenced Swaran Singh v. State (2008) and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) to clarify that public accessibility is essential for such offenses.
Q 7. X and Y have been legally married since 2010. In 2020, Y gave birth to a child. X suspects that he is not the biological father because Y had an extramarital affair during the time of conception. X files a petition challenging the paternity of the child and requests a DNA test to prove his claim. Y argues that, under the law, the child is presumed to be X's legitimate offspring. As per Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which of the following is correct regarding Aman's claim?
A) Aman can rebut the presumption of paternity by proving Y's extramarital affair, as it raises suspicion about the child's parentage.
B) The presumption that X is the father can only be rebutted if he provides conclusive proof that he had no access to Y during the time of conception, making it impossible for him to be the father.
C) X has an absolute right to demand a DNA test since the child's paternity is in question, and mere suspicion is sufficient for the court to allow it.
D) Since Y had an affair, the child is automatically considered illegitimate unless X accepts the paternity voluntarily.
Correct Answer: Option (B)
Case Title: Ivan Rathinam versus Milan Joseph, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118
Explanation: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a child's legitimacy determines paternity, emphasizing that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of parents who had access to each other at the time of conception. The Court dismissed the argument that legitimacy and paternity are distinct concepts requiring separate determination. It held that legitimacy and paternity are inherently intertwined, as the legitimacy of a child directly establishes paternity. The Court clarified that if it is proven that the married couple had access to each other at the time of the child's conception, the child is deemed legitimate, thereby establishing the paternity of the couple.
Q 8. X agrees to sell his property to Y in January 2023 but later refuses, prompting Y to sue for specific performance. While the suit is pending, X sells the property to Z in May 2024. Unaware of the litigation, Z seeks impleadment, which the trial court rejects. Z appeals, and the High Court grants leave. Can Z, whose impleadment was denied, challenge the trial court's decree favoring Y by appealing to the High Court, claiming adverse effects on his rights?
A) Z, as a pendente lite transferee, has an absolute right to be impleaded in the suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
B) The High Court correctly allowed Z's appeal because a pendente lite transferee is not bound by the decree if he was not made a party to the suit.
C) The High Court erred, as Z had no automatic right to be impleaded in the suit, and he is bound by the outcome of the litigation under Section 52 Transfer of Property Act.
D) Z can avoid the effects of lis pendens (pending litigation) by proving that he was unaware of the suit at the time of purchase.
Answer: Option (C)
Case Title: Case Title: H. ANJANAPPA & ORS. VERSUS A. PRABHAKAR & ORS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 123
Explanation: The Supreme Court ruled that a pendente lite transferee (someone who purchases a suit property during the pendency of the litigation) has no automatic right to be impleaded in a suit. It said only in exceptional cases, where the transferee's rights are adversely affected or jeopardized, a leave would be granted to the pendente lite transferee (who wasn't impleaded in the suit) to appeal against the decree.
In this case, the transfer of the suit property to Z occurred during the ongoing suit and was subject to the case's outcome under Section 52 TPA. Since the trial court ruled against him, he cannot be considered adversely affected, entitling them to leave to appeal without being impleaded in the suit.
Q 9. W is accused of murdering his neighbor, Z. The police arrested W and during interrogation, he disclosed the location of the alleged murder weapon, a knife hidden in his garden shed. The knife is recovered based on his statement. At trial, the prosecution's case rests solely on W's disclosure statement and the recovery of the knife. There are no eyewitnesses, and no other evidence linking W to the crime. W argued that the disclosure statement alone is insufficient for a conviction. Decide.
A) W's conviction should be upheld, as the disclosure statement and recovery of the weapon are sufficient evidence.
B) The conviction should be overturned, as a disclosure statement alone, without corroborating evidence, is insufficient for conviction.
C) The trial court should conduct a fresh trial, allowing the prosecution to gather additional evidence.
D) The admissibility of the disclosure statement depends on whether W confessed voluntarily.
Answer: Option (B)
Case Title: Vinobhai versus State of Kerala, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 127
Explanation: The Supreme Court stated that a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act unaccompanied by the supporting evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reasoned that the conviction cannot be solely based on the disclosure statement because it is considered a weak piece of evidence.
Q 10. A intends to kill B due to a long-standing enmity. One night, he enters B's house and, in the darkness, mistakenly stabs C, B's brother, who dies on the spot. A argues in his defense that he never intended to harm C and should not be held liable for his death. Based on the doctrine of "transmigration of motive" under Section 301 of the IPC, how should the court decide A's liability?
A) A is not guilty, as he did not intend to kill C.
B) A is guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC, as the intention to kill B is transferred to C under Section 301 IPC.
C) A is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
D) A is guilty only of causing grievous hurt, as he did not specifically target C.
Answer: Option (B)
Case Title: Case Name: ASHOK SAXENA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ETC. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 163
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently observed that Section 301 of the IPC (Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended) reflects the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive. Explaining this provision, the Court said that culpable homicide may be committed even if the offender causes the death of a person he did not intend. Provided that the killing takes place while doing an act which the offender intended.
