CLAT PG 2025 Question Paper with Answer Key

 Page 1


Instruct Ions  to  c and Idates  
 d uration of t est : 2 h ours (120 minutes) Maximum Marks : 120
Quest Ion Booklet  n o.
 1. This Question Booklet (QB) contains 120  
(One hundred and Twenty) Multiple Choice 
Questions across 44 (Forty Four) pages 
including  3  (Three)  blank pages for rough 
work. No additional sheet(s) of paper will be 
supplied for rough work.
 2. You have to answer ALL questions in the 
separate carbonised Optical Mark Reader 
(OMR) Response Sheet supplied along 
with this QB. You must READ the detailed 
instructions provided with the OMR 
Response Sheet on the reverse side of this 
packet BEFORE you start the test.
 3. No clarification can be sought on the QB 
from anyone. In case of any discrepancy 
such as printing error or missing pages, in  
the QB, request the Invigilator to replace the 
QB and OMR Response Sheet. Do not use  
the previous OMR Response Sheet with the 
fresh QB.
 4. You should write the QB Number, and the 
OMR Response Sheet Number, and sign in 
the space/column provided in the Attendance 
Sheet.
 5. The QB for the Post Graduate Programme is 
for 120 marks. Every r ight answer secures  
1 mark. Every Wrong answer results in the 
deduction of 0.25 mark. There shall be no 
deductions for Unanswered Questions.
 6. You may retain the QB and the Candidate’s 
copy of the OMR Response Sheet after the 
test.
 7. The use of any unfair means shall result in 
your disqualification. Possession of Electronic 
Devices such as mobile phones, headphones, 
digital watches etc., is/are strictly prohibited 
in the test premises. Impersonation or any 
other unlawful practice will lead to your 
disqualification and possibly, appropriate 
action under the law.
* 
*
do not o Pen t Ill 2 P.M.
PG 2025
 1.   n ame of c andidate :  
 2.  a dmit c ard n umber :     
Page 2


Instruct Ions  to  c and Idates  
 d uration of t est : 2 h ours (120 minutes) Maximum Marks : 120
Quest Ion Booklet  n o.
 1. This Question Booklet (QB) contains 120  
(One hundred and Twenty) Multiple Choice 
Questions across 44 (Forty Four) pages 
including  3  (Three)  blank pages for rough 
work. No additional sheet(s) of paper will be 
supplied for rough work.
 2. You have to answer ALL questions in the 
separate carbonised Optical Mark Reader 
(OMR) Response Sheet supplied along 
with this QB. You must READ the detailed 
instructions provided with the OMR 
Response Sheet on the reverse side of this 
packet BEFORE you start the test.
 3. No clarification can be sought on the QB 
from anyone. In case of any discrepancy 
such as printing error or missing pages, in  
the QB, request the Invigilator to replace the 
QB and OMR Response Sheet. Do not use  
the previous OMR Response Sheet with the 
fresh QB.
 4. You should write the QB Number, and the 
OMR Response Sheet Number, and sign in 
the space/column provided in the Attendance 
Sheet.
 5. The QB for the Post Graduate Programme is 
for 120 marks. Every r ight answer secures  
1 mark. Every Wrong answer results in the 
deduction of 0.25 mark. There shall be no 
deductions for Unanswered Questions.
 6. You may retain the QB and the Candidate’s 
copy of the OMR Response Sheet after the 
test.
 7. The use of any unfair means shall result in 
your disqualification. Possession of Electronic 
Devices such as mobile phones, headphones, 
digital watches etc., is/are strictly prohibited 
in the test premises. Impersonation or any 
other unlawful practice will lead to your 
disqualification and possibly, appropriate 
action under the law.
* 
*
do not o Pen t Ill 2 P.M.
PG 2025
 1.   n ame of c andidate :  
 2.  a dmit c ard n umber :     
PG
  
 I. Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, was 
convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in February 2021. The case marked a 
significant milestone in international criminal law, focusing on issues of child soldiering, 
forced marriage, and sexual and gender-based violence. Ongwen was found guilty of 61 
counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, enslavement, 
forced marriage, rape, and conscription of children under the age of 15 into armed groups. 
The ICC’s judgment emphasized the importance of accountability for leaders who exploit 
children in conflicts and commit sexual and gender-based crimes.
  A critical aspect of the judgment was the consideration of Ongwen’s own history as a child 
soldier. Ongwen was abducted by the LRA at around the age of nine and was forced to 
commit atrocities as he rose through the ranks. The court balanced this background against 
the gravity of his crimes, ultimately ruling that his personal history did not absolve him of 
responsibility for his actions as an adult commander. The judgment is also notable for its 
comprehensive approach to reparations for victims. The ICC ordered collective reparations, 
including symbolic measures like memorials, physical and psychological rehabilitation, 
and financial compensation to support the victims and their communities. This case 
reinforces the ICC’s commitment to addressing serious international crimes, particularly 
those involving vulnerable populations such as children and women and underscores the 
principles of justice and reparation in international criminal law. 
  (This extract is taken from Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (ICC, 2021))
 1. Which principle of international criminal law ensures that individuals, regardless of 
their position or rank, can be held accountable for committing serious international 
crimes?
 (A) Sovereign immunity (B) Command responsibility
 (C) Diplomatic immunity (D) Universal jurisdiction
 2. In the context of international criminal law, what does the principle of “individual 
criminal responsibility” entail?
 (A) Only states can be held accountable for international crimes
 (B) Individuals can be held personally liable for committing war crimes, crimes against 
humanity, and genocide
 (C) Individuals are immune from prosecution if they act under state orders
 (D) Only military personnel can be held responsible for international crimes
 3.  The concept of “crimes against humanity” includes which of the following acts, as 
exemplified in the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen case?
 (A) Piracy and terrorism
 (B) Enslavement, forced marriage, and sexual violence
 (C) Espionage and sabotage
 (D) Intellectual property theft
Page 3


Instruct Ions  to  c and Idates  
 d uration of t est : 2 h ours (120 minutes) Maximum Marks : 120
Quest Ion Booklet  n o.
 1. This Question Booklet (QB) contains 120  
(One hundred and Twenty) Multiple Choice 
Questions across 44 (Forty Four) pages 
including  3  (Three)  blank pages for rough 
work. No additional sheet(s) of paper will be 
supplied for rough work.
 2. You have to answer ALL questions in the 
separate carbonised Optical Mark Reader 
(OMR) Response Sheet supplied along 
with this QB. You must READ the detailed 
instructions provided with the OMR 
Response Sheet on the reverse side of this 
packet BEFORE you start the test.
 3. No clarification can be sought on the QB 
from anyone. In case of any discrepancy 
such as printing error or missing pages, in  
the QB, request the Invigilator to replace the 
QB and OMR Response Sheet. Do not use  
the previous OMR Response Sheet with the 
fresh QB.
 4. You should write the QB Number, and the 
OMR Response Sheet Number, and sign in 
the space/column provided in the Attendance 
Sheet.
 5. The QB for the Post Graduate Programme is 
for 120 marks. Every r ight answer secures  
1 mark. Every Wrong answer results in the 
deduction of 0.25 mark. There shall be no 
deductions for Unanswered Questions.
 6. You may retain the QB and the Candidate’s 
copy of the OMR Response Sheet after the 
test.
 7. The use of any unfair means shall result in 
your disqualification. Possession of Electronic 
Devices such as mobile phones, headphones, 
digital watches etc., is/are strictly prohibited 
in the test premises. Impersonation or any 
other unlawful practice will lead to your 
disqualification and possibly, appropriate 
action under the law.
* 
*
do not o Pen t Ill 2 P.M.
PG 2025
 1.   n ame of c andidate :  
 2.  a dmit c ard n umber :     
PG
  
 I. Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, was 
convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in February 2021. The case marked a 
significant milestone in international criminal law, focusing on issues of child soldiering, 
forced marriage, and sexual and gender-based violence. Ongwen was found guilty of 61 
counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, enslavement, 
forced marriage, rape, and conscription of children under the age of 15 into armed groups. 
The ICC’s judgment emphasized the importance of accountability for leaders who exploit 
children in conflicts and commit sexual and gender-based crimes.
  A critical aspect of the judgment was the consideration of Ongwen’s own history as a child 
soldier. Ongwen was abducted by the LRA at around the age of nine and was forced to 
commit atrocities as he rose through the ranks. The court balanced this background against 
the gravity of his crimes, ultimately ruling that his personal history did not absolve him of 
responsibility for his actions as an adult commander. The judgment is also notable for its 
comprehensive approach to reparations for victims. The ICC ordered collective reparations, 
including symbolic measures like memorials, physical and psychological rehabilitation, 
and financial compensation to support the victims and their communities. This case 
reinforces the ICC’s commitment to addressing serious international crimes, particularly 
those involving vulnerable populations such as children and women and underscores the 
principles of justice and reparation in international criminal law. 
  (This extract is taken from Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (ICC, 2021))
 1. Which principle of international criminal law ensures that individuals, regardless of 
their position or rank, can be held accountable for committing serious international 
crimes?
 (A) Sovereign immunity (B) Command responsibility
 (C) Diplomatic immunity (D) Universal jurisdiction
 2. In the context of international criminal law, what does the principle of “individual 
criminal responsibility” entail?
 (A) Only states can be held accountable for international crimes
 (B) Individuals can be held personally liable for committing war crimes, crimes against 
humanity, and genocide
 (C) Individuals are immune from prosecution if they act under state orders
 (D) Only military personnel can be held responsible for international crimes
 3.  The concept of “crimes against humanity” includes which of the following acts, as 
exemplified in the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen case?
 (A) Piracy and terrorism
 (B) Enslavement, forced marriage, and sexual violence
 (C) Espionage and sabotage
 (D) Intellectual property theft
PG
*
  
 4. What is the significance of the principle of “complementarity” in the context of the 
International Criminal Court (ICC)?
 (A) The ICC can prosecute cases only when national jurisdictions are unwilling or 
unable to do so
 (B) The ICC has primary jurisdiction over all international crimes
 (C) The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed within its member states
 (D) The ICC shares jurisdiction equally with national courts
 5. Which of the following statements best describes the significance of the Prosecutor v. 
Dominic Ongwen case in the context of international criminal law?
 (A) It was the first case to address environmental crimes in international conflicts
 (B) It marked a milestone in addressing sexual and gender-based violence and the 
exploitation of children in armed conflicts
 (C) It was the first case to involve cybercrimes committed by international armed 
groups
 (D) It primarily focused on the financial aspects of running an armed group
 II. The landmark judgment of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa 
& Others, delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1978, significantly influenced the 
interpretation of the term ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case 
cantered on whether the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, a statutory body, 
could be classified as an industry under the Act, thereby making its employees eligible for 
certain protections and benefits. Prior to this case, the definition of ‘industry’ had been 
subject to varied interpretations, leading to confusion and inconsistency in its application. 
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, broadly defined ‘industry’ to include any business, trade, 
undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and any calling, service, employment, 
handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. However, this expansive 
definition left room for ambiguity, especially concerning statutory bodies and non-profit 
organizations. In this case, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board argued that 
it was not an industry, emphasizing its statutory duties and public welfare objectives. 
The Board contended that its primary purpose was to provide essential services, not 
to engage in profit-making activities typical of private enterprises. On the other hand, 
the respondents, including A. Rajappa, argued that the Board’s activities fell within the 
scope of an industry as defined by the Act, and thus, its employees should be entitled to 
the benefits and protections accorded to workers in industries. The Supreme Court, in its 
judgment, undertook a comprehensive analysis of the term ‘industry.’ The bench, led by 
Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg, laid down a broad and inclusive definition of ‘industry.’ 
The Court asserted that what mattered was the nature of the activity and the relationship 
between the employer and the employees. This interpretation aimed to ensure that a wide 
range of workers, including those employed in public utility services, statutory bodies, 
and even some non-profit organizations, would be covered under the protective umbrella 
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The decision in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa 
Page 4


Instruct Ions  to  c and Idates  
 d uration of t est : 2 h ours (120 minutes) Maximum Marks : 120
Quest Ion Booklet  n o.
 1. This Question Booklet (QB) contains 120  
(One hundred and Twenty) Multiple Choice 
Questions across 44 (Forty Four) pages 
including  3  (Three)  blank pages for rough 
work. No additional sheet(s) of paper will be 
supplied for rough work.
 2. You have to answer ALL questions in the 
separate carbonised Optical Mark Reader 
(OMR) Response Sheet supplied along 
with this QB. You must READ the detailed 
instructions provided with the OMR 
Response Sheet on the reverse side of this 
packet BEFORE you start the test.
 3. No clarification can be sought on the QB 
from anyone. In case of any discrepancy 
such as printing error or missing pages, in  
the QB, request the Invigilator to replace the 
QB and OMR Response Sheet. Do not use  
the previous OMR Response Sheet with the 
fresh QB.
 4. You should write the QB Number, and the 
OMR Response Sheet Number, and sign in 
the space/column provided in the Attendance 
Sheet.
 5. The QB for the Post Graduate Programme is 
for 120 marks. Every r ight answer secures  
1 mark. Every Wrong answer results in the 
deduction of 0.25 mark. There shall be no 
deductions for Unanswered Questions.
 6. You may retain the QB and the Candidate’s 
copy of the OMR Response Sheet after the 
test.
 7. The use of any unfair means shall result in 
your disqualification. Possession of Electronic 
Devices such as mobile phones, headphones, 
digital watches etc., is/are strictly prohibited 
in the test premises. Impersonation or any 
other unlawful practice will lead to your 
disqualification and possibly, appropriate 
action under the law.
* 
*
do not o Pen t Ill 2 P.M.
PG 2025
 1.   n ame of c andidate :  
 2.  a dmit c ard n umber :     
PG
  
 I. Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, was 
convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in February 2021. The case marked a 
significant milestone in international criminal law, focusing on issues of child soldiering, 
forced marriage, and sexual and gender-based violence. Ongwen was found guilty of 61 
counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, enslavement, 
forced marriage, rape, and conscription of children under the age of 15 into armed groups. 
The ICC’s judgment emphasized the importance of accountability for leaders who exploit 
children in conflicts and commit sexual and gender-based crimes.
  A critical aspect of the judgment was the consideration of Ongwen’s own history as a child 
soldier. Ongwen was abducted by the LRA at around the age of nine and was forced to 
commit atrocities as he rose through the ranks. The court balanced this background against 
the gravity of his crimes, ultimately ruling that his personal history did not absolve him of 
responsibility for his actions as an adult commander. The judgment is also notable for its 
comprehensive approach to reparations for victims. The ICC ordered collective reparations, 
including symbolic measures like memorials, physical and psychological rehabilitation, 
and financial compensation to support the victims and their communities. This case 
reinforces the ICC’s commitment to addressing serious international crimes, particularly 
those involving vulnerable populations such as children and women and underscores the 
principles of justice and reparation in international criminal law. 
  (This extract is taken from Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (ICC, 2021))
 1. Which principle of international criminal law ensures that individuals, regardless of 
their position or rank, can be held accountable for committing serious international 
crimes?
 (A) Sovereign immunity (B) Command responsibility
 (C) Diplomatic immunity (D) Universal jurisdiction
 2. In the context of international criminal law, what does the principle of “individual 
criminal responsibility” entail?
 (A) Only states can be held accountable for international crimes
 (B) Individuals can be held personally liable for committing war crimes, crimes against 
humanity, and genocide
 (C) Individuals are immune from prosecution if they act under state orders
 (D) Only military personnel can be held responsible for international crimes
 3.  The concept of “crimes against humanity” includes which of the following acts, as 
exemplified in the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen case?
 (A) Piracy and terrorism
 (B) Enslavement, forced marriage, and sexual violence
 (C) Espionage and sabotage
 (D) Intellectual property theft
PG
*
  
 4. What is the significance of the principle of “complementarity” in the context of the 
International Criminal Court (ICC)?
 (A) The ICC can prosecute cases only when national jurisdictions are unwilling or 
unable to do so
 (B) The ICC has primary jurisdiction over all international crimes
 (C) The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed within its member states
 (D) The ICC shares jurisdiction equally with national courts
 5. Which of the following statements best describes the significance of the Prosecutor v. 
Dominic Ongwen case in the context of international criminal law?
 (A) It was the first case to address environmental crimes in international conflicts
 (B) It marked a milestone in addressing sexual and gender-based violence and the 
exploitation of children in armed conflicts
 (C) It was the first case to involve cybercrimes committed by international armed 
groups
 (D) It primarily focused on the financial aspects of running an armed group
 II. The landmark judgment of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa 
& Others, delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1978, significantly influenced the 
interpretation of the term ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case 
cantered on whether the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, a statutory body, 
could be classified as an industry under the Act, thereby making its employees eligible for 
certain protections and benefits. Prior to this case, the definition of ‘industry’ had been 
subject to varied interpretations, leading to confusion and inconsistency in its application. 
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, broadly defined ‘industry’ to include any business, trade, 
undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and any calling, service, employment, 
handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. However, this expansive 
definition left room for ambiguity, especially concerning statutory bodies and non-profit 
organizations. In this case, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board argued that 
it was not an industry, emphasizing its statutory duties and public welfare objectives. 
The Board contended that its primary purpose was to provide essential services, not 
to engage in profit-making activities typical of private enterprises. On the other hand, 
the respondents, including A. Rajappa, argued that the Board’s activities fell within the 
scope of an industry as defined by the Act, and thus, its employees should be entitled to 
the benefits and protections accorded to workers in industries. The Supreme Court, in its 
judgment, undertook a comprehensive analysis of the term ‘industry.’ The bench, led by 
Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg, laid down a broad and inclusive definition of ‘industry.’ 
The Court asserted that what mattered was the nature of the activity and the relationship 
between the employer and the employees. This interpretation aimed to ensure that a wide 
range of workers, including those employed in public utility services, statutory bodies, 
and even some non-profit organizations, would be covered under the protective umbrella 
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The decision in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa 
PG
  
*
& Others had far-reaching implications. It extended the scope of labour protections to a 
broader spectrum of workers, ensuring that more employees could benefit from the dispute 
resolution mechanisms and other safeguards provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. 
This judgment underscored the judiciary’s role in interpreting labour laws to promote social 
justice and protect workers’ rights in a rapidly industrializing nation.
  (Extract from Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa & Others, 1978 2 SCC)
 6. According to the Supreme Court’s judgment, what is the most important factor in 
determining whether an activity constitutes an industry?
 (A) The profit-making motive of the employer
 (B) When there are multiple activities carried on by an establishment, its dominant 
function has to be considered. If the dominant function is not commercial, benefits 
of a workman of an industry under Industrial Dispute Act may be given
 (C) The nature of the activity and the authority of the employer over its employees
 (D) When there are multiple activities carried on by an establishment, all the activities 
must be considered. Even if one activity is commercial, the employees will not get 
the benefit of workman of an industry under the Industrial Dispute Act
 7. Which of the following best describes the broader impact of the judgment?
 (A) It reduced labour protections for workers
 (B) It extended labour protections to a broader spectrum of workers
 (C) It had no significant impact on labour laws
 (D) It only affected private sector workers
 8. Which of the following best describes the term ‘industry’ as defined by the Supreme 
Court in this judgment?
 (A) Any activity involving profit-making
 (B) Any systematic activity organized by cooperation between an employer and 
employees for producing or distributing goods and services
 (C) Only activities conducted by private enterprises
 (D) Activities limited to manufacturing sectors
 9. In which of the following landmark judgement, the Supreme Court held that when an 
association or society of apartment owners employs workers for personal services to its 
members, those workers do not qualify as workmen under the Act and the association 
is not an “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act?
 (A) Som Vihar Apartment Owners’ Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. v. Workmen, 
2009 SC
 (B) Anand Vihar Apartment Owners’ Society Ltd. v. Workmen, 2024 SC
 (C) Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union v. Kanchanjunga Flat Owners Society 
& Anr., 2024 SC
 (D) None of the above
Page 5


Instruct Ions  to  c and Idates  
 d uration of t est : 2 h ours (120 minutes) Maximum Marks : 120
Quest Ion Booklet  n o.
 1. This Question Booklet (QB) contains 120  
(One hundred and Twenty) Multiple Choice 
Questions across 44 (Forty Four) pages 
including  3  (Three)  blank pages for rough 
work. No additional sheet(s) of paper will be 
supplied for rough work.
 2. You have to answer ALL questions in the 
separate carbonised Optical Mark Reader 
(OMR) Response Sheet supplied along 
with this QB. You must READ the detailed 
instructions provided with the OMR 
Response Sheet on the reverse side of this 
packet BEFORE you start the test.
 3. No clarification can be sought on the QB 
from anyone. In case of any discrepancy 
such as printing error or missing pages, in  
the QB, request the Invigilator to replace the 
QB and OMR Response Sheet. Do not use  
the previous OMR Response Sheet with the 
fresh QB.
 4. You should write the QB Number, and the 
OMR Response Sheet Number, and sign in 
the space/column provided in the Attendance 
Sheet.
 5. The QB for the Post Graduate Programme is 
for 120 marks. Every r ight answer secures  
1 mark. Every Wrong answer results in the 
deduction of 0.25 mark. There shall be no 
deductions for Unanswered Questions.
 6. You may retain the QB and the Candidate’s 
copy of the OMR Response Sheet after the 
test.
 7. The use of any unfair means shall result in 
your disqualification. Possession of Electronic 
Devices such as mobile phones, headphones, 
digital watches etc., is/are strictly prohibited 
in the test premises. Impersonation or any 
other unlawful practice will lead to your 
disqualification and possibly, appropriate 
action under the law.
* 
*
do not o Pen t Ill 2 P.M.
PG 2025
 1.   n ame of c andidate :  
 2.  a dmit c ard n umber :     
PG
  
 I. Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, was 
convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in February 2021. The case marked a 
significant milestone in international criminal law, focusing on issues of child soldiering, 
forced marriage, and sexual and gender-based violence. Ongwen was found guilty of 61 
counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, enslavement, 
forced marriage, rape, and conscription of children under the age of 15 into armed groups. 
The ICC’s judgment emphasized the importance of accountability for leaders who exploit 
children in conflicts and commit sexual and gender-based crimes.
  A critical aspect of the judgment was the consideration of Ongwen’s own history as a child 
soldier. Ongwen was abducted by the LRA at around the age of nine and was forced to 
commit atrocities as he rose through the ranks. The court balanced this background against 
the gravity of his crimes, ultimately ruling that his personal history did not absolve him of 
responsibility for his actions as an adult commander. The judgment is also notable for its 
comprehensive approach to reparations for victims. The ICC ordered collective reparations, 
including symbolic measures like memorials, physical and psychological rehabilitation, 
and financial compensation to support the victims and their communities. This case 
reinforces the ICC’s commitment to addressing serious international crimes, particularly 
those involving vulnerable populations such as children and women and underscores the 
principles of justice and reparation in international criminal law. 
  (This extract is taken from Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (ICC, 2021))
 1. Which principle of international criminal law ensures that individuals, regardless of 
their position or rank, can be held accountable for committing serious international 
crimes?
 (A) Sovereign immunity (B) Command responsibility
 (C) Diplomatic immunity (D) Universal jurisdiction
 2. In the context of international criminal law, what does the principle of “individual 
criminal responsibility” entail?
 (A) Only states can be held accountable for international crimes
 (B) Individuals can be held personally liable for committing war crimes, crimes against 
humanity, and genocide
 (C) Individuals are immune from prosecution if they act under state orders
 (D) Only military personnel can be held responsible for international crimes
 3.  The concept of “crimes against humanity” includes which of the following acts, as 
exemplified in the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen case?
 (A) Piracy and terrorism
 (B) Enslavement, forced marriage, and sexual violence
 (C) Espionage and sabotage
 (D) Intellectual property theft
PG
*
  
 4. What is the significance of the principle of “complementarity” in the context of the 
International Criminal Court (ICC)?
 (A) The ICC can prosecute cases only when national jurisdictions are unwilling or 
unable to do so
 (B) The ICC has primary jurisdiction over all international crimes
 (C) The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed within its member states
 (D) The ICC shares jurisdiction equally with national courts
 5. Which of the following statements best describes the significance of the Prosecutor v. 
Dominic Ongwen case in the context of international criminal law?
 (A) It was the first case to address environmental crimes in international conflicts
 (B) It marked a milestone in addressing sexual and gender-based violence and the 
exploitation of children in armed conflicts
 (C) It was the first case to involve cybercrimes committed by international armed 
groups
 (D) It primarily focused on the financial aspects of running an armed group
 II. The landmark judgment of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa 
& Others, delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1978, significantly influenced the 
interpretation of the term ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case 
cantered on whether the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, a statutory body, 
could be classified as an industry under the Act, thereby making its employees eligible for 
certain protections and benefits. Prior to this case, the definition of ‘industry’ had been 
subject to varied interpretations, leading to confusion and inconsistency in its application. 
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, broadly defined ‘industry’ to include any business, trade, 
undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and any calling, service, employment, 
handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. However, this expansive 
definition left room for ambiguity, especially concerning statutory bodies and non-profit 
organizations. In this case, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board argued that 
it was not an industry, emphasizing its statutory duties and public welfare objectives. 
The Board contended that its primary purpose was to provide essential services, not 
to engage in profit-making activities typical of private enterprises. On the other hand, 
the respondents, including A. Rajappa, argued that the Board’s activities fell within the 
scope of an industry as defined by the Act, and thus, its employees should be entitled to 
the benefits and protections accorded to workers in industries. The Supreme Court, in its 
judgment, undertook a comprehensive analysis of the term ‘industry.’ The bench, led by 
Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg, laid down a broad and inclusive definition of ‘industry.’ 
The Court asserted that what mattered was the nature of the activity and the relationship 
between the employer and the employees. This interpretation aimed to ensure that a wide 
range of workers, including those employed in public utility services, statutory bodies, 
and even some non-profit organizations, would be covered under the protective umbrella 
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The decision in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa 
PG
  
*
& Others had far-reaching implications. It extended the scope of labour protections to a 
broader spectrum of workers, ensuring that more employees could benefit from the dispute 
resolution mechanisms and other safeguards provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. 
This judgment underscored the judiciary’s role in interpreting labour laws to promote social 
justice and protect workers’ rights in a rapidly industrializing nation.
  (Extract from Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa & Others, 1978 2 SCC)
 6. According to the Supreme Court’s judgment, what is the most important factor in 
determining whether an activity constitutes an industry?
 (A) The profit-making motive of the employer
 (B) When there are multiple activities carried on by an establishment, its dominant 
function has to be considered. If the dominant function is not commercial, benefits 
of a workman of an industry under Industrial Dispute Act may be given
 (C) The nature of the activity and the authority of the employer over its employees
 (D) When there are multiple activities carried on by an establishment, all the activities 
must be considered. Even if one activity is commercial, the employees will not get 
the benefit of workman of an industry under the Industrial Dispute Act
 7. Which of the following best describes the broader impact of the judgment?
 (A) It reduced labour protections for workers
 (B) It extended labour protections to a broader spectrum of workers
 (C) It had no significant impact on labour laws
 (D) It only affected private sector workers
 8. Which of the following best describes the term ‘industry’ as defined by the Supreme 
Court in this judgment?
 (A) Any activity involving profit-making
 (B) Any systematic activity organized by cooperation between an employer and 
employees for producing or distributing goods and services
 (C) Only activities conducted by private enterprises
 (D) Activities limited to manufacturing sectors
 9. In which of the following landmark judgement, the Supreme Court held that when an 
association or society of apartment owners employs workers for personal services to its 
members, those workers do not qualify as workmen under the Act and the association 
is not an “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act?
 (A) Som Vihar Apartment Owners’ Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. v. Workmen, 
2009 SC
 (B) Anand Vihar Apartment Owners’ Society Ltd. v. Workmen, 2024 SC
 (C) Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union v. Kanchanjunga Flat Owners Society 
& Anr., 2024 SC
 (D) None of the above
PG
*
  
 10. Under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, what is the role of the “Works Committee” 
and which of the following correctly describes its function?
 (A) The Works committee is a body formed by the Central government to address 
wage disputes between employer and employee in public sector industries
 (B) The Works committee is a grievance redressal body constituted by the employer, 
primarily to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good 
relations between the employer and employee
 (C) The Works Committee is responsible for making binding decisions on industrial 
disputes related to layoffs, retrenchment and closure of industrial units
 (D) All of the above
 III.  For a principle to be acceptable as a law, Lon Fuller states that it must be measured in 
terms of the following eight standards: (1) The principle must be expounded in a manner 
so that it can be generally applied. A pattern less ad hoc system of law lacks the desired 
“internal morality” which legal principles should possess. This proposition is comparable 
to the often-read statement that our government is a government of laws rather than men.  
(2) The mandates of the law must be communicated to the people to whom they are directed. 
(3) Newly announced principles of law, except on rare occasions, should be applied only in a 
prospective manner. Retroactive application of changes in prescribed norms, subject to the 
presence of compelling extenuating circumstances, should be avoided. (4) Standards of action 
and inaction should be clearly stated. Fuller concedes that the lawmaker cannot specify 
with absolute clarity exactly what is demanded of each individual in every instance when 
the law may affect him. He does, however, assert that the duty to clarify the law should be 
delegated to the enforcement bodies only to the extent that such action is required by the 
environment in which the law must operate. (5) Arguing that respect for the law calls for 
consistency, Fuller maintains that the originators of laws should take great pains to see 
that the body of law is as free as possible from contradictory mandates, (6) Emphasizing 
that law is tied to the capabilities of human beings, Fuller insists that those who prescribe 
the norms required of individuals must refrain from imposing impossible standards of 
action or inaction. A stated norm which demands an absurd course of action would violate 
Fuller’s idea of the “internal morality of law.” (7) While stare decisis, of recent date, has 
been viewed by some, if not many people, as a barrier on the pathways to needed change, 
Fuller is of the opinion that abiding by previously announced norms is desirable in and of 
itself. He finds that frequency of change, by its very nature, tends to have a deleterious 
impact upon the persons who are subjected to an abrupt alteration of the requirements 
which the law imposes upon them. (8) The student of American history is familiar with 
Andrew Jackson’s assertion to the effect that while the Supreme Court might render a 
judgment, it lacked the means by which it might be implemented. 
  [Extracted from  Tucker, Edwin W. (1965) “The Morality of Law, by Lon L. Fuller,” Indiana 
Law Journal: Vol. 40: Iss. 2, Article5.]