Judiciary Exams Exam  >  Judiciary Exams Tests  >  Civil Law for Judiciary Exams  >  Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Judiciary Exams MCQ


Test Description

15 Questions MCQ Test Civil Law for Judiciary Exams - Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts

Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts for Judiciary Exams 2024 is part of Civil Law for Judiciary Exams preparation. The Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts questions and answers have been prepared according to the Judiciary Exams exam syllabus.The Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts MCQs are made for Judiciary Exams 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts below.
Solutions of Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts questions in English are available as part of our Civil Law for Judiciary Exams for Judiciary Exams & Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts solutions in Hindi for Civil Law for Judiciary Exams course. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Judiciary Exams Exam by signing up for free. Attempt Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts | 15 questions in 15 minutes | Mock test for Judiciary Exams preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study Civil Law for Judiciary Exams for Judiciary Exams Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 1

What was the primary purpose of implementing sovereign immunity under British rule in pre-independence India?

Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 1
The primary purpose of implementing sovereign immunity under British rule in pre-independence India was to protect the people from potential harm caused by the East India Company. Sovereign immunity aimed to shield the East India Company from liability for torts committed by its servants, thereby safeguarding the interests of the company while ensuring a level of protection for the Indian populace.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 2

In the 1893 case of O. and P. Navigation Company vs. Secretary of State of India, what terms were introduced to determine the liability of the East India Company for torts committed by its servants?

Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 2
In the 1893 case of O. and P. Navigation Company vs. Secretary of State of India, the terms 'Sovereign' and 'Non-sovereignty' were introduced to determine the liability of the East India Company for torts committed by its servants. These terms played a crucial role in distinguishing the company's immunity based on the nature of its functions, thereby influencing the legal frameworks surrounding vicarious liability.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 3

Who classified the functions of the East India Company into 'sovereign' and 'non-sovereign immunity', thus establishing vicarious liability?

Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 3
C.J. Peacock classified the functions of the East India Company into 'sovereign' and 'non-sovereign immunity', thereby establishing vicarious liability. This classification played a pivotal role in determining the extent of legal responsibility held by the company based on the nature of its actions, influencing the development of legal precedents regarding corporate liability during that period.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 4
What legal concept was challenged in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Vidyawati?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 4
The case of State of Rajasthan vs. Vidyawati challenged the concept of sovereign immunity, leading to a significant legal ruling that required the state to provide compensation for the victim. Sovereign immunity refers to the legal doctrine that the government or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 5
In Kasturi Lal vs. State of U.P., what distinction did the Supreme Court make regarding state functions?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 5
In the case of Kasturi Lal vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court differentiated between sovereign and non-sovereign state functions. This distinction was crucial as it determined whether the state could claim sovereign immunity in cases of alleged wrongdoing. Sovereign functions are those essential to the functioning of the state, such as maintaining law and order, whereas non-sovereign functions are more commercial or administrative in nature.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 6
What type of state functions did the Supreme Court consider fall under sovereign immunity in Kasturi Lal vs. State of U.P.?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 6
In the case of Kasturi Lal vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court determined that police abuse falls under the state's sovereign immunity. This decision relieved the state of liability in cases where police actions were considered as part of the state's sovereign functions, essential for maintaining law and order.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 7
How did the court rule in the case of a government servant injuring a pedestrian in State of Rajasthan vs. Vidyawati?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 7
In State of Rajasthan vs. Vidyawati, the court ruled against the state's use of sovereign immunity and held the state liable for the actions of the government servant who negligently injured a pedestrian. This ruling marked a significant legal development in terms of state responsibility for the actions of its employees.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 8
What was the key emphasis made in the Vidyawati case regarding the state's power?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 8
The Vidyawati case highlighted the critical point that the state cannot misuse its power under the guise of sovereign immunity. This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that the state operates responsibly and accountably, even when invoking its sovereign powers.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 9
What did the court express dissatisfaction with in relation to laws concerning sovereign immunity?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 9
The dissatisfaction expressed by the court regarding laws on sovereign immunity specifically pointed to the need for legislative action to address the issues at hand. This highlights the court's recognition of the importance of legislative responsibility in shaping and refining legal frameworks related to sovereign immunity.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 10
According to the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishnan Reddy Case, what ruling did the court make regarding the maxim "the king can do no wrong" or "the crown is not accountable to the people for any violations"?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 10
In the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishnan Reddy Case, the court ruled that the maxim "the king can do no wrong" or "the crown is not accountable to the people for any violations" does not hold true. This decision signifies a significant shift in accountability and responsibility, emphasizing that the crown is indeed answerable for any wrongdoings.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 11
What is the procedural aspect highlighted in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishnan Reddy Case regarding filing petitions for tortious acts committed by the state?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 11
The procedural aspect emphasized in the case is that an aggrieved individual can file a petition in a trial court for tortious acts committed by the state. This provision removes the necessity to directly approach the Supreme Court or High Court under Articles 32 and 226, streamlining the legal process for seeking redress in such cases.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 12
Why is it significant that states are unable to defend themselves using statutory authority when fundamental rights are involved, as per the court's ruling in the case?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 12
The court's decision that states cannot defend themselves using statutory authority when fundamental rights are at stake is crucial as it underscores the paramount importance of safeguarding fundamental rights. By prioritizing fundamental rights over statutory grounds, the ruling ensures that individuals' rights and liberties are protected and upheld, setting a significant precedent for future legal interpretations and cases.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 13
Why are constitutional benches often necessary for decisions on critical legal matters?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 13
Constitutional benches are crucial for decisions on critical legal matters because they ensure a diverse range of perspectives. By bringing together judges with varied viewpoints and expertise, these benches facilitate thorough deliberation and consideration of different angles before arriving at a conclusive decision, which can enhance the legitimacy and robustness of the judgment.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 14
In what scenario would a constitutional bench comprising seven or more judges need to overrule the Kasturi Lal case?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 14
A constitutional bench comprising seven or more judges would need to overrule the Kasturi Lal case in a scenario where circumstances arise that demand its overruling. This underscores the significance of specific conditions and the requisite judicial process involved in revisiting and potentially overturning established legal precedents.
Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 15
What key aspect did the court fail to address regarding violations in the Kasturi Lal case?
Detailed Solution for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts - Question 15
The court did not address situations where violations could occur concerning legal rights other than fundamental rights in the context of the Kasturi Lal case. This omission highlights a potential limitation in the scope of the case's application, signaling a gap in addressing broader legal rights issues beyond fundamental rights.
253 docs|259 tests
Information about Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts Page
In this test you can find the Exam questions for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts solved & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving Questions and answers for Test: Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts, EduRev gives you an ample number of Online tests for practice

Up next

Download as PDF

Up next

Download the FREE EduRev App
Track your progress, build streaks, highlight & save important lessons and more!