Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Live Law brings to you interesting questions on recent important Supreme Court Judgments for judicial services and other law competitive examinations. Here are the ten most important questions :Q 1. Under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, what constitutes proper compliance with the requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of their arrest?A) Informing the arrestee's relative about the arrest and its reasons.B) Recording the reasons for arrest in the arrest memo, remand report, or case diary.C) Personally and effectively communicating the grounds of arrest to the arrestee.D) Providing the grounds of arrest in a later court hearing.Answer: Option (C)Case Title: VIHAAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR, Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169Explanation: The Supreme Court has clarified that merely informing a relative or recording the grounds in official documents does not fulfill the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). The arrested person must be directly informed of the grounds of arrest in a clear and effective manner.Article 22(1) | Informing Relatives About Arrest Isn't Compliance Of Duty To Inform Arrestee Of Grounds Of Arrest : Supreme CourtQ 2. Decide when a repealing Act is not required to obtain fresh Presidential Assent under Article 254 of the Constitution.A) When the original Act had received Presidential Assent, and the repealing Act alters the law significantly.B) When the repealing Act is intended to correct flaws in the old law without contradicting prior judicial rulings.C) When the repealing Act establishes an entirely new legal framework in place of the old law.D) When the original Act was a Central law, and the repealing Act is passed by a State Legislature.Answer: Option (B)Case Title: M/S S.R.S. TRAVELS BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.T. RAJASHEKAR VERSUS THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION WORKERS & ORS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 166Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified that a repealing Act does not require fresh Presidential Assent if it falls within the legislative competence of the State and is meant to rectify the shortcomings of the prior law rather than introducing a new legal framework. The mere fact that the original Act had Presidential Assent does not automatically mandate the same for the repealing Act.Repealing Act Does Not Require Presidential Assent Merely Because Original Act Got President's Assent: Supreme CourtQ 3. A woman, without obtaining a formal divorce from her first husband, marries a second time with a man who is fully aware of her first marriage. They live together, have a child, and later separate due to disputes. The woman seeks maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband. The second husband opposes the claim, arguing that she is not legally his "wife" as her first marriage was never legally dissolved. Decide whether the woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband.A) The woman is not entitled to maintenance as her second marriage is void due to the subsistence of her first marriage.B) The woman is entitled to maintenance since her second husband knew about her first marriage and lived with her as husband and wife.C) The woman can claim maintenance only if she proves that her first husband is unable to provide for her.D) The second husband is liable for maintenance only if he legally adopted their child.Answer: Option (B)Case Title: SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. VERSUS MOODUDULA SRINIVAS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 156Explanation: The Supreme Court ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. The Court clarified that a formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory. If the woman and her first husband mutually agreed to separate, the absence of a legal divorce does not prevent her from seeking maintenance from her second husband.Wife, Separated From 1st Husband, Can Claim Maintenance From 2nd Husband Though 1st Marriage Not Legally Dissolved: Supreme CourtQ 4. Flat purchasers challenged the builder's forfeiture of 20% of the basic sale price as earnest money as per the Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) following their cancellation of the flat booking. They contended that the 20% forfeiture was arbitrary and excessive amounting to a penalty for 'breach of contract' under Section 74 of the Contract Act. Decide the most appropriate option.A) Forfeiture of earnest money is always considered a penalty, regardless of the amount.B) Any forfeiture of more than 10% of the BSP is deemed excessive and arbitrary.C) Earnest money can be forfeited, but the amount must not be so excessive that it becomes a penalty for a breach of contract.D) The Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) did not mention any forfeiture clause, making the builder's claim invalid.Answer: Option (C)Case Title: GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED VERSUS ANIL KARLEKAR & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC)...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers