Self Studies
Self Studies
Self Studies
Self Studies
Selfstudy
Selfstudy

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 41

Result Self Studies

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 41
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
TIME Taken - -
Self Studies

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Self Studies Self Studies
Weekly Quiz Competition
  • Question 1
    1 / -0
    How many High Courts in India have jurisdiction over more than one State (Union Territories not included)?
    Solution
    The Gauhati High Court has jurisdiction over Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh and High Court of Hyderabad has jurisdiction over Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. These two High Court's have jurisdiction over one or more states excluding Union Territories. Besides these following High Courts share with states and Union Territories:
    1. Bombay high court - Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu.
    2. Kolkata High court- Kolkata and Andaman and Nicobar                                
     3. Kerala high court- Kerala and Lakshadweep
    4.Madras high court- madras and Pondicherry
    5.Punjab and high court- Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh
  • Question 2
    1 / -0
    Consider the following:
    1. Supreme Court's power to issue writs is narrower than that of High Courts.
    2. A citizen is free to approach High Court or Supreme Court as he chooses, whenever his Fundamental Rights are violated.
    3. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts throughout India. 
    Which of the above statement(s) is are correct?
    Solution
    Both the Supreme Court and High courts have the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 32 and 226 respectively. The High court can issue writs for the legal rights as well while the supreme court can issue only for the fundamental rights. Any person whose fundamental rights are violated any approach either supreme court or High Court directly. The decision of the supreme court is binding on all courts throughout the territory of India.
  • Question 3
    1 / -0
    Which of the following statements regarding Judiciary in India are correct?
    I. Supreme Court of India is free from the control and influence of Legislature and Executive.
    II. Subordinate courts are at the head of the judicial hierarchy of the State.
    III. The Chief Justice and other Judges of the High Court are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
    IV. A High Court can withdraw a case from a subordinate court and can deal with the case itself if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial point of constitutional law.
    Solution
    The Indian Constitution has adopted Single, Integrated and Independent Judiciary. Article 50 of the Constitution of India provides for separation of Judiciary from the Executive. The Constitution has made provisions ensuring the independence of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
    Article 228 of the Constitution of India says that the High Court can withdraw a case pending in a subordinate court if it involves a substantial question of law that requires the interpretation of the Constitution. It can either dispose of the case itself or determine the question of law and return it to subordinate court.
  • Question 4
    1 / -0
    All the courts in India except ___________ and _____________ are subordinate courts.
    Solution

    In India, there is a system of single undivided and co-ordinated judiciary. In this system, the Supreme Court is placed at the top above all the other courts. Below the Supreme Court, the High Courts of different states are placed. All the other courts which are below the High Courts in their position are termed as the 'subordinate courts' in the judicial system of India. 

  • Question 5
    1 / -0
    The Constitution gives the powers of superintendence over all subordinate courts to the High Courts under Article _____________.
    Solution
    Under Article 227 it is specifically provided that the High Court has the power of superintendence over all the courts and tribunals throughout its jurisdictional territory, except military tribunals. 
    This power of supervision is a very wide power as it extends to all courts as well as tribunals within the State, whether such court or tribunal is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of High Court or not.
  • Question 6
    1 / -0
    Pre-constitution __________ decisions are binding on the __________ unless overruled by the _________.
    Solution
    The Privy Council was the highest appellate authority of British India for matters arising out of the ordinary law. After the post-independence, the Privy Council was abolished. The Indian constituent assembly passed the abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act 1949 to abolish the jurisdiction of Privy Council in respect of appeals from India and also to provide for pending appeals.  The Supreme court has inherited the jurisdiction of the Privy Council after its abolition. The jurisdiction of the Supreme court under the present constitution is much more extensive than that of the Federal Court and the Privy Council. The Supreme Court is a court of record and can review its own decision. Pre-Constitution Privy Council decisions are binding on the High Court unless it is overruled by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court has the power to overrule the Privy Council decisions and after overruling the decision and not binding.
  • Question 7
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Seema is an international wrestler and a member of the Mahabali Akhada in Thane, Maharashtra. The Mahabali Akhada has strict rules against doping and also on possession of Prohibited Substances. It had circulated to each of its members, a list of Prohibited Substances, including the substance Dexamethasone. On Tuesday, Seema caught a severe cold and her doctor prescribed her a cough syrup, Cofdex. Acting on her doctors advice, Seema requested her driver to get Cofdex from the local pharmacy. Naina, who happens to be a rival of Seema and also a member of the Mahabali Akhada, saw Seemas driver purchasing Cofdex from the pharmacy. Naina knew that Cofdex contains Dexamethasone and, on the same day, made an anonymous complaint to the Mahabali Akhada that Seema is in constructive possession of a Prohibited Substance. The next day, Seema took one dose of Cofdex and then checked the ingredients of the medicine. She found out that it contains Dexamethasone. She immediately reported to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada that she came in possession of the cough syrup and intends to surrender it since it contains Dexamethasone. On Thursday, the Anti-Doping Wing of the Mahabali Akhada requested Seema for her urine samples, which tested positive for the presence of Dexamethasone. 
    The Mahabali Akahadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances states the following: The actual, physical or constructive possession of a Prohibited Substance amounts to a violation of this Anti-Doping Code; provided, however, constructive possession shall only be found if the person knew about the presence of the Prohibited Substance and exercised control to acquire possession of it. Provided, however, there shall be no violation of this Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances, if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the person never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and has renounced its possession by explicitly declaring it to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the purchase (including by any electronic or other means) of a Prohibited Substance constitutes possession by the Person who makes the purchase.

    ...view full instructions

    The Mahabali Akhadas Anti-Doping Code on Presence of Prohibited Substances in an Athletes Sample contains a rule that states the following: It is the Athletes personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its metabolites found to be present in their Samples. Has Seema violated this rule? Choose the option with the correct answer as well as the most appropriate explanation for it.
    Solution
    The correct answer is (d) - yes; Seema failed to prevent the banned substance from entering her body. The rule clearly states that it is the personal duty and responsibility of the athletes to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their body. On this count, Seema clearly failed since she did not prevent the Prohibited Substance, Dexamethasone from entering her body.
  • Question 8
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Seema is an international wrestler and a member of the Mahabali Akhada in Thane, Maharashtra. The Mahabali Akhada has strict rules against doping and also on possession of Prohibited Substances. It had circulated to each of its members, a list of Prohibited Substances, including the substance Dexamethasone. On Tuesday, Seema caught a severe cold and her doctor prescribed her a cough syrup, Cofdex. Acting on her doctors advice, Seema requested her driver to get Cofdex from the local pharmacy. Naina, who happens to be a rival of Seema and also a member of the Mahabali Akhada, saw Seemas driver purchasing Cofdex from the pharmacy. Naina knew that Cofdex contains Dexamethasone and, on the same day, made an anonymous complaint to the Mahabali Akhada that Seema is in constructive possession of a Prohibited Substance. The next day, Seema took one dose of Cofdex and then checked the ingredients of the medicine. She found out that it contains Dexamethasone. She immediately reported to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada that she came in possession of the cough syrup and intends to surrender it since it contains Dexamethasone. On Thursday, the Anti-Doping Wing of the Mahabali Akhada requested Seema for her urine samples, which tested positive for the presence of Dexamethasone. 
    The Mahabali Akahadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances states the following: The actual, physical or constructive possession of a Prohibited Substance amounts to a violation of this Anti-Doping Code; provided, however, constructive possession shall only be found if the person knew about the presence of the Prohibited Substance and exercised control to acquire possession of it. Provided, however, there shall be no violation of this Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances, if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the person never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and has renounced its possession by explicitly declaring it to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the purchase (including by any electronic or other means) of a Prohibited Substance constitutes possession by the Person who makes the purchase.

    ...view full instructions

    A precedent is either binding on or persuasive when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Which of the following would not be a valid precedent for deciding on Nainas complaint against Seema?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (b) - a case involving an athlete who added a sauce containing a banned growth hormone to a bowl of pasta to be consumed by a rival athlete. Barring option (b), all the other options involve actual, physical or constructive possession of a banned substance by an athlete. However, option (b) involves a case where one athlete chooses to contaminate a rival athletes food with a banned substance, presumably to frame the rival athlete. This is not similar to the facts or the allegation in Nainas complaint.
  • Question 9
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    The law on prevention of cruelty to animals makes it an offence if a person does any of the following:
    • Beats, kicks, overrides, or tortures an animal or, being the owner, knowingly permits, any animal to be so treated (Type 1 Offence);
    • Fails to provide any animal with sufficient food, drink, or shelter being the owner of such animal (Type 2 Offence);
    • Without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely to suffer pain, starvation, or thirst (Type 3 Offence);
    • Solely with a view to providing entertainment incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal (Type 4 Offence)
    Exception for Experiments - The law, however, makes an exception to the above offences by stating that it is not unlawful to perform experiments (including experiments involving operations) on animals for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants.
    Ameena leaves her pup with her friend Nisha and requests Nisha to take good care of the pup until she returns from a 10-day business trip that she cannot avoid. Ameena mentions that she would pay Nisha for the food and any other expense that Nisha incurs in taking care of the pet. Ameena also asks Nisha to promise that she would call her if there was any problem with the pup, and Nisha agrees. Nisha takes the pup to the beach on a walk without letting Ameena know and feeds him a large family-pack of ice-cream. This causes the pup to have a gastrointestinal upset and he starts to growl - attracting the attention of several aggressive stray dogs in the vicinity eager to attack the pup. To punish the pup for his misbehaviour despite feeding him her favourite ice-cream, Nisha abandons the pup at the beach and takes a rickshaw back to her house. Soon after, the bigger stray dogs surround and attack the pup. A passer-by who sees this, urges and exhorts the pup to stand up for himself and fight the bigger dogs. The children playing cricket on the beach find this entertaining and line up to watch the fight. Meanwhile, Aaron, who is meditating at the beach, gets disturbed by the commotion created by the dogs and decides to stuff large stones in the mouths of the dogs to prevent them from barking. Many of the dogs, unable to get the stones out, die of starvation.

    ...view full instructions

    Aaron is charged with a Type 3 Offence and he defends the charge by saying that his actions are saved by the Experiments Exception under law. Which of the following statements is true in relation to Aarons actions?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (c) - Aaron is guilty since his actions do not constitute an experiment done with the purpose of advancement by new discovery of knowledge for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease. Aaron’s actions were not undertaken with the purpose of advancement by new discovery of knowledge. Although Aaron may have saved himself from temporary disturbance and distraction, his actions do not in any way amount to discovery of knowledge that is useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants generally and therefore aren’t covered by the ‘Experiments Exception’. Therefore (c) is the correct answer and not (a) or (b). 
    Option (d) is logically inconsistent, and cannot be correct, since the exception applies to offences, and as a result of the exception, any offences committed during the performance of experiments of the nature permitted by the exception will not amount to offences – provided such experiments are for ‘advancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants’, which , as we have seen, is not correct in this case.
  • Question 10
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    The law on prevention of cruelty to animals makes it an offence if a person does any of the following:
    • Beats, kicks, overrides, or tortures an animal or, being the owner, knowingly permits, any animal to be so treated (Type 1 Offence);
    • Fails to provide any animal with sufficient food, drink, or shelter being the owner of such animal (Type 2 Offence);
    • Without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely to suffer pain, starvation, or thirst (Type 3 Offence);
    • Solely with a view to providing entertainment incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal (Type 4 Offence)
    Exception for Experiments - The law, however, makes an exception to the above offences by stating that it is not unlawful to perform experiments (including experiments involving operations) on animals for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants.
    Ameena leaves her pup with her friend Nisha and requests Nisha to take good care of the pup until she returns from a 10-day business trip that she cannot avoid. Ameena mentions that she would pay Nisha for the food and any other expense that Nisha incurs in taking care of the pet. Ameena also asks Nisha to promise that she would call her if there was any problem with the pup, and Nisha agrees. Nisha takes the pup to the beach on a walk without letting Ameena know and feeds him a large family-pack of ice-cream. This causes the pup to have a gastrointestinal upset and he starts to growl - attracting the attention of several aggressive stray dogs in the vicinity eager to attack the pup. To punish the pup for his misbehaviour despite feeding him her favourite ice-cream, Nisha abandons the pup at the beach and takes a rickshaw back to her house. Soon after, the bigger stray dogs surround and attack the pup. A passer-by who sees this, urges and exhorts the pup to stand up for himself and fight the bigger dogs. The children playing cricket on the beach find this entertaining and line up to watch the fight. Meanwhile, Aaron, who is meditating at the beach, gets disturbed by the commotion created by the dogs and decides to stuff large stones in the mouths of the dogs to prevent them from barking. Many of the dogs, unable to get the stones out, die of starvation.

    ...view full instructions

    Which of the following, if true, is a good defence from Nishas perspective?
    Solution
    The correct answer is (a) - it had become dark and the stray dogs at the beach were about to attack Nisha. We have already established under Question 2 that Nisha is guilty of abandoning the pup in circumstances which render it likely to suffer pain, starvation or thirst. However, it’s an offence only if Nisha did so ‘without reasonable cause’. 
    However, if the stray dogs were about to attack Nisha and Nisha only escaped to avoid being attacked by them, this can amount to a ‘reasonable cause’ and therefore, a good defence. 
    Options (b), (c), and (d) are not correct since they have no relevance to the offence that Nisha is guilty of and do not in any way change the nature or characterisation of her actions under the law as specified above. 
Self Studies
User
Question Analysis

  • Correct -

  • Wrong -

  • Skipped -

My Perfomance
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition
Self Studies Get latest Exam Updates
& Study Material Alerts!
No, Thanks
Self Studies
Click on Allow to receive notifications
Allow Notification
Self Studies
Self Studies Self Studies
To enable notifications follow this 2 steps:
  • First Click on Secure Icon Self Studies
  • Second click on the toggle icon
Allow Notification
Get latest Exam Updates & FREE Study Material Alerts!
Self Studies ×
Open Now