Legal Mock Test - 14


40 Questions MCQ Test Mock Test Series for CLAT 2020 | Legal Mock Test - 14


Description
This mock test of Legal Mock Test - 14 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 40 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Legal Mock Test - 14 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Legal Mock Test - 14 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Legal Mock Test - 14 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Legal Mock Test - 14 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Principle: Penal laws provide that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man or woman, shall be punished for rape.
Factual Situation: A Police Officer found a man engaged in carnal intercourse with an animal. The Police Officer arrested the man and produced him before the Court.

Solution:

The man in the situation who is found to having carnal intercourse for which punishment is provided under penal law. Man is guilty of rape.

QUESTION: 2

Passage: India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally-accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies.   Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world.   Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about the Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form.  

Q. Which of the following views can be correctly attributed to the author of the above passage?  

Solution:

The idea of privacy as a basic right is not adequately addressed in the Bill in its current form. The very essence of the author’s view is that despite the judgment in the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case recognising the right to privacy as a basic right, the Bill in its current form does not sufficiently protect the right to privacy of individuals. None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

QUESTION: 3

Passage: India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally-accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies.   Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world.   Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about the Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form.   

Q. According to the passage, the committee headed by Justice B. N. Srikrishna called for: 

Solution:

Limiting the grounds on which Government agencies may be allowed to act in a manner that endangers the right to privacy of individuals. As is evident from a reading of the passage, the committee anticipated dangers to the right to privacy from Government agencies as well and advocated building safeguards to prevent the same. The passage states that the committee recommended that exemptions allowed to Government agencies should be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. (a) is the only option consistent with such a recommendation. 

QUESTION: 4

In pari delicto means:

Solution:

Latin term which means in equal fault . this phrase is used where both the partners are equally at fault.

QUESTION: 5

Principle: Where one of the parties to a contract was in a position to dominate the decision of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate the decision of the other party.
Factual Situation: A doctor asked his patient to make a payment of rupees Ten Lakh for treatment of his fever. The patient paid an amount of rupees Five Lakh and promised to pay the remaining amount after the treatment. After treatment, the patient recovered from fever. The doctor demanded the remaining amount from the patient. The patient refused to pay.

Solution:

As per principle the contract is enforceable at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate the decision of the other. Here doctor is in dominating position over the patient and he has actually operated so contract is enforced.

QUESTION: 6

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. 

Q. Based on the author’s arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be most correct:  

Solution:

The state should not control the prices of medicines, since the market would determine the best price for such drugs. The author offers the reason for controlling drug prices towards the beginning of the second paragraph – since, unlike in developed countries, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check. Based on this reasoning, therefore, if citizens do not have to pay for drugs, there would be no reason for the state to control prices. There is nothing in the passage to support either (a), (b), or (d) as the correct option.  

QUESTION: 7

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point.

Q. An essential medicine, ‘Formula A’, is used to treat cancer, and there is only one company engaged in its manufacture. If this is true, then, based on the author’s reasoning in the passage above:   

Solution:

The state should control the price of Formula A, since there is no competition in the marketplace, and it cannot function to control the price of the medicine. The author argues that competition in the marketplace would ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits, in the last paragraph of the passage above. If, however, only one company manufactures Formula A, there would be no competition in the marketplace, and thus, the state would have to control its price. 

QUESTION: 8

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. 

Q. The state removes all price restrictions on an essential medicine. Pharmaceutical companies start selling that medicine at a price nearly 5 times its earlier price. In such a situation, based on the author’s reasoning above:

Solution:

The state should not control the price of the medicine, since competition in the market would eventually lead to an appropriate price being set. The author provides this reasoning for why the state should not control the prices of medicines, in the last paragraph of the passage. There is no information in the facts provided to indicate that (b) is the correct option. The author does not discuss the state providing the ingredients for medicines at all, and so, option (c) cannot be correct. Option (d) is also not correct, since we do not know what the previous price of the medicine was, nor do we have any information about whether people can afford it or not; this option is also contradictory to the author’s argument that the market would eventually ensure that no company makes extraordinary profits.

QUESTION: 9

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point. 

Q. The state places a very low price for the sale of an essential medicine, which is lower than the price of the imported ingredients used to make that medicine. What, according to the author, would be the effect of setting such a low price? 

Solution:

The low price would restrict the availability of the medicine in the market, since pharmaceutical companies may not want to manufacture or import the medicine and sell it at that price. This option is supported by the first paragraph, which describes how pharmaceutical companies have pointed out that the increasing costs of imports have made the manufacture of certain drugs unviable, since ingredients are usually imported. The author does not discuss the pricing policies of the manufacturers of ingredients of medicines, and so, option (b) cannot be correct. Neither is there any information in the passage to support option (c) as the correct answer.

QUESTION: 10

Passage: Last week, the government used the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, to increase the price ceiling for 21 medicines by as much as 50% to ensure their availability in the market. This is a welcome move because lower prices would have further limited the availability of these drugs, some of which include those used for malaria, leprosy and allergy. The decision by the regulatory authority – usually known to reduce prices of essential drugs – was prompted by repeated petitions by the pharmaceutical industry, which pointed out that the increasing cost of imports had made the production of some of these drugs unviable. Prices of bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients have, in fact, gone up by up to 88%, and are largely imported. This raises a basic question: Should the government control prices? The motivation for controlling drug prices is not very difficult to understand. Unlike some of the developed countries, where most of the population has insurance coverage or medical facilities are provided by the state, medical expenses in India are borne by citizens, largely through out-of pocket expenses. Therefore, the state intervenes by keeping prices of some drugs in check to contain such spending. However, the unintended consequence is that it affects the supply of drugs and can potentially make citizens worse off. The risk of non-availability was an important reason for raising prices. Although all pharmaceutical companies may not stop producing drugs with price control, they may limit the supply. Further, the government usually dithers on price hike because of political considerations so that it is not accused of favouring private companies. Thus, the government should stay away from dictating prices and allow the market to function. Competition in the marketplace will ensure that no company is able to make extraordinary profits in basic and essential drugs. Since the state has limited resources, it should focus on regulation, and ensure that the quality of drugs supplied in the market is not compromised at any point.   

Q. The pharmaceutical industry has been asking the government to raise the prices of certain drugs for a long time, but has not received a response. Why, according to the author, could this be? 

Solution:

The government is indecisive about raising prices for the fear of being accused of favouring private companies. The author states this towards the end of the second paragraph, and says that this would be for political considerations. There is no information in the passage to support (b) as the correct option. While the author says that the government has limited resources, and argues that it should not set prices for medicines, the author does not provide these as reasons for delays by the government in setting the prices of medicines. 

QUESTION: 11

Lex loci means:

Solution:

It's a Latin word which means law of the land.

QUESTION: 12

Principle: Acceptance of proposal must be the exact mirror image of the proposal.
Facts: ‘A’ made a proposal to ‘B’ to sell a chair for Rs. 500. ‘B’ is desirous of buying the said chair for Rs. 400.

Solution:

Infact both the parties should agree to the same thing. In the same sense therefore the acceptance must be verbal of the proposal and untill a proposal is accepted according to the desire of Proposal.

QUESTION: 13

How many languages are there in the eighth schedule to the Constitution of India?

Solution:

Of these languages, 14 were initially included in the Constitution. Subsequently, Sindhi was added in 1967 by 21st constitutional amendment act; Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali were added in 1992 by 71st Constitutional Amendment Act; and Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santali were added in 2004 by 92nd Constitutional Amendment Act. Total 22 language

QUESTION: 14

Per incuriam.

Solution:

Per incuriam, literally translated as "through lack of care", refers to a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant.
The significance of a judgment having been decided per incuriam is that it does not then have to be followed as precedent by a lower court. Ordinarily, in the common law, the rationes of a judgment must be followed thereafter by lower courts while hearing similar cases. A lower court is free, however, to depart from an earlier judgment of a superior court where that earlier judgment was decided per incuriam. Also the said doctrine is an exception to article 141 of Constitution of India which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law.

QUESTION: 15

Which is the oldest Code of Law in India?

Solution:

Manu-smriti, (Sanskrit: “Laws of Manu” or “The Remembered Tradition of Manu”)also called Manava-dharma-shastra (“The Dharma Text of Manu”), traditionally the most authoritative of the books of the Hindu code (Dharmashastra) in India. Manu-smriti is the popular name of the work, which is officially known as Manava-dharma-shastra. It is attributed to the legendary first man and lawgiver, Manu. The received text dates from circa 100 CE.

QUESTION: 16

Passage: The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.
So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.
The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.
The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.
With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.
The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.
The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.
Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.
The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.
But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.

Q. The legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir passes a law against the 100th Amendment Act of Parliament of India passed in 2015 in its session held on 20-1-20. The Speaker of the House attends the session and calls it path-breaking in the ethos of federal democracy where the legislative Assembly can pass a law showing true spirit of dissent against the Union.

Solution:

The legislative assembly cannot pass the law against the law made in parliament.

QUESTION: 17

Passage: The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.
So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.
The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.
The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.
With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.
The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.
The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.
Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.
The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.
But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.

Q. The People of J and K had the right to have say in interference of legislative law making power by Union of India by virtue of ______________ the Indian Constitution. 

Solution:

It is clearly mentioned in the passage that Article 370(3) was the clause that was a rider or check on the power of the President.

QUESTION: 18

Passage: The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.
So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.
The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.
The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.
With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.
The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.
The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.
Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.
The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.
But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.

Q. Ram Singh is a permanent resident of J and K and is notified under the Scheduled Caste category. He applies for the job of DSP Police whose recruitment exam was undertaken in February 2019 and interviews are to be conducted in the month of December 2019. Ram Singh was not selected eventually as the government did not provide him reservation benefits. Decide.

Solution:

The vacancies and the advertisement came when new presidential notification was not issued. The law of recruitment applicable at that time will apply. 

QUESTION: 19

Passage: The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.
So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.
The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.
The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.
With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.
The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.
The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.
Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.
The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.
But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.

Q. The new order promugulated by the President has removed the legislature of J&K. The New UT is governed on the lines of _______________?

Solution:

It is clearly mentioned in the passage that the new UT will be governed on the lines of UT of Puducherry.

QUESTION: 20

Passage: The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.
So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.
The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.
The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.
With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.
The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.
The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.
Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, the Constituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.
The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.
But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.

Q. The President issued an order well under his powers and under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. If instead of the promugulation of the order, the Parliament would have removed Article 370 from the Indian Constitution, what would have been the consequence?

Solution:

The abrogation of Article 370 will result in complete Independence of the state of J&k from the Union of India. In order to come over this obstacle, a presidential notification was issued without abrogating Article 370.

QUESTION: 21

Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person.
However, the force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Facts: Krishna was walking on a lonely road. Maniyan came with a knife and said to Krishna, "Your life or your purse". Krishna pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Krishna shot Maniyan in his legs.
Decide:

Solution:

The force employed was way more than the danger level as Maniyan started to run away from Krishna. As the threat was reduced and was continuously reducing, there was no need to shoot Maniyan in the Legs.

QUESTION: 22

A contract requires a proposal and an acceptance of the proposal. It is necessary to make a binding contract, not only that the proposal be accepted, but also that the acceptance is notified to the proposer.
Factual Situation: Diu offered to purchase a home owned by Pawan for 20,00,000. He wrote to Pawan's agent asking whether his offer was accepted. He also added that he was ready to accept any higher price if found reasonable. The agent of pawan Shyam sunder replied, 'would not accept less than 30,00,000'. Diu accepted this and brought a suit in a local court for specific performance.
Issue: Is Pawan liable for specific performance?
Decision:

Solution:

Pawan is not liable because there is only and invitation to offer from Pawan’s agent. There is no meeting of the minds, hence no valid contract can be formed.

QUESTION: 23

A nominal sum given as a token for striking a sale is called

Solution:

A sum of money paid by a buyer at the time of entering a contract to indicate the intention and ability of the buyer to carry out the contract. Normally such earnest money is applied against the purchase price. Often the contract provides for Forfeiture of this sum if the buyer defaults. A deposit of part payment of purchase price on sale to be consummated in future.

QUESTION: 24

The right of a party to initiate an action and be heard before a Court of law is called

Solution:

Locus standi in litigation. Locus standi in iudicio concerns “the sufficiency and directness of a litigant's interest in proceedings which warrants his or her title to prosecute the claim asserted”, and should be one of the first things to establish in a litigation matter.

QUESTION: 25

The Supreme Court held that evidence can be recorded by video-conferencing in the case 

Solution:

The Supreme Court has held in State of Maharashtra vs Praful Desai (2003 4 SCC 601) that the recording of evidence by way of video conferencing might be done in cases where the attendance of the witness cannot be ensured without delay, expense and inconvenience.

QUESTION: 26

Supreme Court held that Preamble as a basic feature of Constitution cannot be amended in the case of

Solution:

The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle, that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament. Key among these "basic features", as expounded by Justice Khanna, are the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals by the constitution.The doctrine thus forms the basis of a power of the Supreme Court to review and strike down constitutional amendments and acts enacted by the Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this "basic structure" of the Constitution.Justice Hans Raj Khanna's decisive judgment in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Previously, the Supreme Court had held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was unfettered.However, in this landmark ruling, the Court adjudicated that while Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution.

QUESTION: 27

'When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or, any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise, is called a consideration for the promise'.
Factual Situation: A doctor gave up his lucrative practice in the city and served as manager of an ashram at the Ashram’s request in lieu of which the manager of the ashram subsequently promised a monthly remuneration.
Issue: What is the nature of contract?
Decision:

Solution:

HERE AT THE DESIRE of the parties where by the Consent of the doctor is not taken by misrepresentation or fraud or undue influence. Contract is valid.

QUESTION: 28

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Facts: A, a child born on January 01, 2005 killed another child B on December 30, 2011.

Solution:

The child of less than 7 years can commit no crime has been taken from the doctrine ‘Doli Incapax’ which means Not capable of committing a crime. Since facts clearly mention that A was less than 7 years of age, he is not culpable of any crime.

QUESTION: 29

‘India is a Federation’. In which of the following articles of the Indian Constitution the word ‘Federation’ is mentioned _____________ ?

Solution:

Article 1 (1) of the constitution says India shall be a union of states.
Federalism in India refers to relations between the Centre and states of Union of India. The Constitution of India establishes structure of the Indian government. Part XI of the Indian constitution specifies the distribution of legislative, administrative and executive powers between the union government and the States of India. The legislative powers are categorised under a Union List, a State List and a Concurrent List, representing, respectively, the powers conferred upon the Union government, those conferred upon the State governments and powers shared among them.

QUESTION: 30

What is the meaning of the Legal Maxim/ Legal Word/Legal Term “In paricausa possessor potiorhaberidebet.”?

Solution:

In pari causa possessor potior haberi debet. When two parties have equal rights, the advantage is always in favor of the possessor.

QUESTION: 31

Principles: (i) Bigamy is not permitted under Hindu law. (ii) A Hindu of sound mind can adopt a child of the gender they don‟t already have a child of. (iii) Only the child‟s father, mother or guardian has the capacity to give the child up in adoption, under Hindu law.
Facts: Rangvi comes from a family where from the past 2 generations, all male members have had 2 wives. He also wants to continue this tradition and thus he married Savitri first and then Tapasya. Rangvi has a son, Gokul, with Savitri. However, with Tapasya, he is childless. He thus wishes to adopt some children. Ram is the child of Rangvi‟s brother. However, Ram‟s parents decide to go off to Dubai for 5 years and they leave their son under the care of Rangvi‟s sister.
Rangvi and Tapasya ask for Ram in adoption from his sister who agrees and Ram is adopted. Later, Rangvi and Savitri want to adopt a daughter as well and they do adopt a girl – Saraswati –from an orphanage. However, at the time of signing the adoption deed, Rangvi was dead drunk.
Rangvi and all of his family member are Buddhists.

Q. Is Saraswati‟s adoption a valid adoption?

Solution:

As per principle,one has to be in sound state of mind for adopting a child, whereas Raghvi was dead drunk.
 Hence, he cannot be presumed to make a rational decision.

QUESTION: 32

Principle Intoxication is a defence only against the crime of murder.
Explanation Murder refers to the wilful killing of a person.
Facts: X had gone to a friend Y's place for his birthday party. X was a non-drinker, and in fact hated people who drink. Y was slightly drunk when X arrived, and asked X to drink some breezer as a mark of their everlasting friendship. X was told that breezer has no alcohol content, and therefore consumed five bottles of cranberry breezer. This made him drunk, and on realising he was drunk, he lost his temper and threw an empty bottle at the bartender, who had just undergone a head surgery. The bottle split open the wound, and the bartender died of excessive bleeding. A case of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder) was filed against X. Decide his liability.

Solution:

Benefit of intoxication can not be given since he was in at much senses he could make out that he is drunk. His losing temper also shows that he was not intoxiacted to such an extent that he could not determine the nature f his act that a part he tooks drinks at asking of his friend and not bartender.

QUESTION: 33

Husband and wife have a right to each others company. The right is called

Solution:

This term pertains to sexual relation between husband and wife. If any spouse withdraws from the company of other without any reasonable excuse, the aggrieved spouse may approach the court for restitution of conjugal rights. 

QUESTION: 34

Passage: Service in UN peacekeeping operations, fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan and deployment in Syria, Lebanon, Ethiopia and Israel are some of the achievements of women Army officers which caught the attention of the Supreme Court for giving them parity with their male counterparts for permanent commission. The apex court cited the examples of [1] and [2], who led separate all-men contingents, and Major Madhumita (Army Education Corps) who became the first woman officer in the country to receive the Gallantry Award (Sena Medal) for fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan.
It also referred to the women officers who are convoy commanders in Leh and Udhamnagar among other places. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi referred to a detailed elaboration of the service rendered by women Short Service Commission (SSC) officers to the nation, working shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts. Major Gopika Ajit Singh Pawar was awarded the UN Peacekeeping Medal by the UN Secretary General for her role as a military member of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. The Supreme Court noted that Majors Madhu Rana, Preeti Singh and Anuja Yadav were awarded the UN Medal completing the qualifying service as military members of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Similarly, Captain Ashwini Pawar (Army Ordinance Corps) and Captain Shipra Majumdar (Army Engineer Corps) were awarded the Sewa Medal by the President in 2007. [1] recently led a contingent of the Indian Army Service Corps, becoming the first woman to lead an all-men Army contingent in the history of India, on India’s 70th Republic Day parade in 2019. Similarly, [2] recently became the first Indian woman Parade Adjutant to lead an all-men contingent in Delhi on January 26 this year.   

Q. The name of which officer of the Indian Army has been replaced with ‘[1]’ in the passage above? 

Solution:

Mitali Madhumita is the first woman officer in the Indian Army to receive a gallantry award.Lieutenant Colonel Mitali Madhumita received the Sena Medal in 2011 for exemplary courage shown during the attack on the Indian embassy by terrorists in Kabul, Afghanistan on 26 February 2010,and operations in Jammu-Kashmir and the northeast states of India.
Lieutenant Colonel Madhumita went into the Indian embassy which had come under attack and rescued several injured civilians and army personnel from the debris. About nineteen people lost their lives in the 2010 Kabul embassy attack including seven Indians.

QUESTION: 35

Passage: Service in UN peacekeeping operations, fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan and deployment in Syria, Lebanon, Ethiopia and Israel are some of the achievements of women Army officers which caught the attention of the Supreme Court for giving them parity with their male counterparts for permanent commission. The apex court cited the examples of [1] and [2], who led separate all-men contingents, and Major Madhumita (Army Education Corps) who became the first woman officer in the country to receive the Gallantry Award (Sena Medal) for fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan.
It also referred to the women officers who are convoy commanders in Leh and Udhamnagar among other places. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi referred to a detailed elaboration of the service rendered by women Short Service Commission (SSC) officers to the nation, working shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts. Major Gopika Ajit Singh Pawar was awarded the UN Peacekeeping Medal by the UN Secretary General for her role as a military member of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. The Supreme Court noted that Majors Madhu Rana, Preeti Singh and Anuja Yadav were awarded the UN Medal completing the qualifying service as military members of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Similarly, Captain Ashwini Pawar (Army Ordinance Corps) and Captain Shipra Majumdar (Army Engineer Corps) were awarded the Sewa Medal by the President in 2007. [1] recently led a contingent of the Indian Army Service Corps, becoming the first woman to lead an all-men Army contingent in the history of India, on India’s 70th Republic Day parade in 2019. Similarly, [2] recently became the first Indian woman Parade Adjutant to lead an all-men contingent in Delhi on January 26 this year.   

Q. The name of Indian Army officer who became the first Indian woman Parade Adjutant to lead an all-men contingent has been replaced with ‘[2]’ in the passage above. What is the officer’s name? 

Solution:

Captain Tania Shergill, an officer with Army's Corps of Signals, will be the first woman parade adjutant for the Republic Day parade. A parade adjutant is responsible for the parade.

QUESTION: 36

Passage: Service in UN peacekeeping operations, fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan and deployment in Syria, Lebanon, Ethiopia and Israel are some of the achievements of women Army officers which caught the attention of the Supreme Court for giving them parity with their male counterparts for permanent commission. The apex court cited the examples of [1] and [2], who led separate all-men contingents, and Major Madhumita (Army Education Corps) who became the first woman officer in the country to receive the Gallantry Award (Sena Medal) for fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan.
It also referred to the women officers who are convoy commanders in Leh and Udhamnagar among other places. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi referred to a detailed elaboration of the service rendered by women Short Service Commission (SSC) officers to the nation, working shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts. Major Gopika Ajit Singh Pawar was awarded the UN Peacekeeping Medal by the UN Secretary General for her role as a military member of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. The Supreme Court noted that Majors Madhu Rana, Preeti Singh and Anuja Yadav were awarded the UN Medal completing the qualifying service as military members of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Similarly, Captain Ashwini Pawar (Army Ordinance Corps) and Captain Shipra Majumdar (Army Engineer Corps) were awarded the Sewa Medal by the President in 2007. [1] recently led a contingent of the Indian Army Service Corps, becoming the first woman to lead an all-men Army contingent in the history of India, on India’s 70th Republic Day parade in 2019. Similarly, [2] recently became the first Indian woman Parade Adjutant to lead an all-men contingent in Delhi on January 26 this year.   

Q. On February 29, 2020, this person became the third woman officer in the Indian Army and first woman paediatrician to achieve the rank of lieutenant general in the Indian Army, the second-highest post in the force. Who are we talking about? 

Solution:

Lieutenant General (Dr) Madhuri Kanitkar, AVSM, VSM is a serving General Officer in the Indian Army. She is the third woman in the Indian Armed Forces to be promoted to a Three-star rank, after Lieutenant General Punita Arora and Air Marshal Padma Bandopadhyay. She currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Integrated Defence Staff (Medical) under the Chief of Defence Staff.Kanitkar also serves on the Prime Minister's Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council (PMSTIAC).

QUESTION: 37

Passage: Service in UN peacekeeping operations, fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan and deployment in Syria, Lebanon, Ethiopia and Israel are some of the achievements of women Army officers which caught the attention of the Supreme Court for giving them parity with their male counterparts for permanent commission. The apex court cited the examples of [1] and [2], who led separate all-men contingents, and Major Madhumita (Army Education Corps) who became the first woman officer in the country to receive the Gallantry Award (Sena Medal) for fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan.
It also referred to the women officers who are convoy commanders in Leh and Udhamnagar among other places. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi referred to a detailed elaboration of the service rendered by women Short Service Commission (SSC) officers to the nation, working shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts. Major Gopika Ajit Singh Pawar was awarded the UN Peacekeeping Medal by the UN Secretary General for her role as a military member of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. The Supreme Court noted that Majors Madhu Rana, Preeti Singh and Anuja Yadav were awarded the UN Medal completing the qualifying service as military members of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Similarly, Captain Ashwini Pawar (Army Ordinance Corps) and Captain Shipra Majumdar (Army Engineer Corps) were awarded the Sewa Medal by the President in 2007. [1] recently led a contingent of the Indian Army Service Corps, becoming the first woman to lead an all-men Army contingent in the history of India, on India’s 70th Republic Day parade in 2019. Similarly, [2] recently became the first Indian woman Parade Adjutant to lead an all-men contingent in Delhi on January 26 this year.   

Q. The observations of the Supreme Court in the passage cited above were made in a judgment relating to a case to decide whether women officers in the Indian Army should be given parity with their male counterparts for permanent commission; who amongst the following was one of the parties in that case? 

Solution:

SSC women officers with over twenty years of service who are not granted PC shall retire on pension in terms of the policy decision , At the stage of opting for the grant of PC, all the choices for specialisation shall be available to women officers on the same terms as for the male SSC officers. Women SSC officers shall be entitled to exercise their options for being considered for the grant of PCs on the same terms as their male counterparts.

QUESTION: 38

Passage: Service in UN peacekeeping operations, fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan and deployment in Syria, Lebanon, Ethiopia and Israel are some of the achievements of women Army officers which caught the attention of the Supreme Court for giving them parity with their male counterparts for permanent commission. The apex court cited the examples of [1] and [2], who led separate all-men contingents, and Major Madhumita (Army Education Corps) who became the first woman officer in the country to receive the Gallantry Award (Sena Medal) for fighting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan.
It also referred to the women officers who are convoy commanders in Leh and Udhamnagar among other places. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi referred to a detailed elaboration of the service rendered by women Short Service Commission (SSC) officers to the nation, working shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts. Major Gopika Ajit Singh Pawar was awarded the UN Peacekeeping Medal by the UN Secretary General for her role as a military member of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. The Supreme Court noted that Majors Madhu Rana, Preeti Singh and Anuja Yadav were awarded the UN Medal completing the qualifying service as military members of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Similarly, Captain Ashwini Pawar (Army Ordinance Corps) and Captain Shipra Majumdar (Army Engineer Corps) were awarded the Sewa Medal by the President in 2007. [1] recently led a contingent of the Indian Army Service Corps, becoming the first woman to lead an all-men Army contingent in the history of India, on India’s 70th Republic Day parade in 2019. Similarly, [2] recently became the first Indian woman Parade Adjutant to lead an all-men contingent in Delhi on January 26 this year.   

Q. Which of the following most accurately describes the outcome of the case from which the Supreme Court’s observation in the passage above has been taken?

Solution:

The honorable supremencourt held that the women officers in INDIAN NAVY and INDIAN Air force beGranted appointment in combat roles.

QUESTION: 39

Principle - A person authorised to do any (legal) act on behalf of another is an agent to the other. - An agent can do any (legal) act that is for the benefit of the principal. - vis major (act of God) is an absolute defence.
Facts: On 28th June 2012, A assigns B the responsibility to sell his agricultural land for a price not less than 50 Lakh (which in the present value of the land), before 30th June 2012. Due to heavy rains and floods, the price of land in the area takes a dip, and B sells the land for 47 Lakh on the morning of 29th June, since he fears that if he waits till evening, the prices may dip further. But the rains suddenly stop and the price of the land goes up to 52 Lakh. A sues the agent for violating his express instructions and causing him loss to the tune of at least 3 Lakhs. Is B liable?

Solution:

Due to heavy rains and floods the cost of land has fallen down considerably and fearing that it may not fall further and  cause loss to his principal, the agent sold the land at a lesser price than instructed. What ever he did was only to prevent loss to his principal.

QUESTION: 40

Principle - Negligence refers to an act, or omission, that occurred as a result of failure to take a reasonable care.
- There is no intention to cause the harm done, if the act is said to be negligent.
- Unless an act is negligent, no action lies in tort.
Facts: Sheila, a house-maid was washing plates in the kitchen. She noticed that there was some oil on one of the plates, but didn't clean it. She then deliberately arranged the plates haphazardly. A plate slipped and broke a lot of other crockery. Is she liable to pay damages under negligence for the same?

Solution:

The correct answer is B as since there is no negligence so she is not liable to pay damages.

Related tests