Famous Indian Cases & Lawyers Test-2

Result

Famous Indian Cases & Lawyers Test-2

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

TIME Taken - -

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.

Weekly Quiz Competition

Question 1
1 / -0.25

Who is the senior counsel mentioned in the text who has been involved in significant telecom litigations?

A
A. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

B
B. Harish Salve

C
C. Iqbal Chawla

D
D. Soli Sorabjee

Solution

Abhishek Manu Singhvi is the senior counsel mentioned in the text who has been actively involved in significant telecom litigations over the past two decades.
Question 2
1 / -0.25

Which significant telecom issue led to the formation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)?

A
A. CDMA and GSM technology related arguments

B
B. Revenue share and one-time spectrum charge related cases

C
C. Vodafone tax imbroglio

D
D. 2G scam

Solution

The formation of TRAI was prompted by CDMA and GSM technology-related arguments, where the need for a techno-economic regulator was emphasized by the court.
Question 3
1 / -0.25

In which year did Abhishek Manu Singhvi take on his first telecom case, becoming the youngest lawyer to be designated as a senior counsel?

A
A. 1993-94

B
B. 2001

C
C. 2008

D
D. 2012

Solution

Abhishek Manu Singhvi took on his first telecom case in 1993-94, becoming the youngest lawyer to be designated as a senior counsel at that time.
Question 4
1 / -0.25

In the case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), what aspect of the Information Technology Act, 2000, did Justice Nariman's judgment address?

A
A. Cybersecurity

B
B. Freedom of Speech on Digital Platforms

C
C. Intellectual Property Rights

D
D. E-commerce regulations

Solution

Justice Nariman's judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) addressed the issue of freedom of speech on digital platforms and the problematic provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Question 5
1 / -0.25

In the case of Jarnail Singh v Lacchmi Narain Gupta (2018), what significant change did the judgment bring about in reservation criteria?

A
A. Introduction of reservations for persons with disabilities

B
B. Removal of the creamy layer exclusion for SC/STs

C
C. Implementation of reservation in promotions without proving backwardness

D
D. Reduction in the percentage of reservation for backward classes

Solution

The judgment in Jarnail Singh v Lacchmi Narain Gupta (2018) eliminated the requirement to prove backwardness for implementing reservation in promotions, making it easier to grant reservations in public employment.
Question 6
1 / -0.25

In which case did Justice Nariman locate the right to privacy as 'inherent' in every individual, irrespective of the Constitution?

A
A. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017)

B
B. Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v Union of India (2014)

C
C. Sabarimala Temple case

D
D. Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India

Solution

Justice Nariman located the right to privacy as 'inherent' in every individual in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017).
Question 7
1 / -0.25

What was the main issue addressed in the case of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v Union of India (2014)?

A
A. Freedom of speech on digital platforms

B
B. Reservation criteria in public employment

C
C. Right to privacy

D
D. National Registry of Citizens in Assam

Solution

The main issue addressed in the case of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v Union of India (2014) was the National Registry of Citizens in Assam.
Question 8
1 / -0.25

In the case of Siddaraju v State of Karnataka (2020), what clarification did Justice Nariman provide regarding reservations?

A
A. Reservations for persons with disabilities follow the same rules as for backward classes.

B
B. Creamy layer exclusion was applied to SC/STs.

C
C. Reservations for women in temples were unconstitutional.

D
D. Reservations for promotions were deemed unnecessary.

Solution

In Siddaraju v State of Karnataka (2020), Justice Nariman clarified that reservations for persons with disabilities did not follow the same rules as backward classes, and they could be entitled to reservations in promotions.
Question 9
1 / -0.25

What significant change did the judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) bring about?

A
A. Decriminalization of homosexuality in India

B
B. Abolishment of the right to privacy

C
C. Criminalization of adultery

D
D. Introduction of reservations in promotions

Solution

The judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) led to the decriminalization of homosexuality in India.
Question 10
1 / -0.25

In Amazon.com v Future Retail (2021), what aspect of arbitration did Justice Nariman's judgment address?

A
A. Enforcement of Emergency Arbitration awards

B
B. Recognition of foreign arbitration awards

C
C. Limitations on domestic arbitration

D
D. Applicability of arbitration in criminal cases

Solution

Justice Nariman's judgment in Amazon.com v Future Retail (2021) addressed the enforcement of Emergency Arbitration awards in India.

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Famous Indian Cases & Lawyers Test-2

Result

Famous Indian Cases & Lawyers Test-2

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

A. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

B. Harish Salve

C. Iqbal Chawla

D. Soli Sorabjee

Solution

Question 2

A. CDMA and GSM technology related arguments

B. Revenue share and one-time spectrum charge related cases

C. Vodafone tax imbroglio

D. 2G scam

Solution

Question 3

A. 1993-94

B. 2001

C. 2008

D. 2012

Solution

Question 4

A. Cybersecurity

B. Freedom of Speech on Digital Platforms

C. Intellectual Property Rights

D. E-commerce regulations

Solution

Question 5

A. Introduction of reservations for persons with disabilities

B. Removal of the creamy layer exclusion for SC/STs

C. Implementation of reservation in promotions without proving backwardness

D. Reduction in the percentage of reservation for backward classes

Solution

Question 6

A. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017)

B. Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v Union of India (2014)

C. Sabarimala Temple case

D. Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India

Solution

Question 7

A. Freedom of speech on digital platforms

B. Reservation criteria in public employment

C. Right to privacy

D. National Registry of Citizens in Assam

Solution

Question 8

A. Reservations for persons with disabilities follow the same rules as for backward classes.

B. Creamy layer exclusion was applied to SC/STs.

C. Reservations for women in temples were unconstitutional.

D. Reservations for promotions were deemed unnecessary.

Solution

Question 9

A. Decriminalization of homosexuality in India

B. Abolishment of the right to privacy

C. Criminalization of adultery

D. Introduction of reservations in promotions

Solution

Question 10

A. Enforcement of Emergency Arbitration awards

B. Recognition of foreign arbitration awards

C. Limitations on domestic arbitration

D. Applicability of arbitration in criminal cases

Solution

User

Question Analysis

My Perfomance

Score

-

Rank

-

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

Stay Tuned: We’ll update you on your result via email or SMS.