← Labour Officer
Past Questions
Extortion is described in
A)
379 of IPC
B)
382 of IPC
C)
383 of IPC
D)
380 of IPC
Step-by-step analysis of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections provided in the options:
1. Section 383 of the IPC specifically defines 'Extortion'. It states that whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces that person to deliver any property or valuable security, commits extortion.
2. Analysis of other options:
- Section 379 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for theft.
- Section 380 of the IPC deals with theft in a dwelling house, etc.
- Section 382 of the IPC deals with theft after preparation for causing death, hurt, or restraint.
Therefore, the definition and description of Extortion are found in Section 383.
Section 22of Indian Limitation Act 1963 refers to cases of
A)
continuing breach of contract
B)
successive breach of contract
C)
both continuing & successive breaches
D)
neither continuing nor successive breaches
Option C: both continuing & successive breaches. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.
For the purpose of section 3, Limitation Act 1963, limitation is checked
A)
when the plaint is actually presented in the proper court
B)
when the plaint is presented even in a court not competent to try the suit
C)
when the plaint is presented by the part
D)
all the above
Option A: when the plaint is actually presented in the proper court. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.
The delay under Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 can be condoned on
A)
an oral application
B)
a verbal application
C)
a written application
D)
none of the above
Option C: a written application. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.
Agreement without consideration is valid, when made
A)
Out of love and affection due to near relationship
B)
To pay a time barred debt
C)
To compensate a person who has already done something voluntarily
D)
All of the above
Under the general rule of Contract Law (specifically Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872), an agreement made without consideration is void ('Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio'). However, there are specific legal exceptions where an agreement is valid even without consideration:
1. **Natural Love and Affection (Option a):** According to Section 25(1), an agreement made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other is valid if it is expressed in writing and registered.
2. **Promise to pay a Time-Barred Debt (Option b):** According to Section 25(3), a promise to pay a debt that is barred by the Limitation Act is valid if it is made in writing and signed by the debtor or their authorized agent.
3. **Compensation for Voluntary Service (Option c):** According to Section 25(2), a promise to compensate, or reimburse, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor is a legally binding contract, even though the act was performed before the promise was made (past consideration).
Since all three scenarios are recognized legal exceptions to the rule that consideration is necessary for a valid contract, the correct answer is 'All of the above'.
Which of the following deals with where the subject- matter of the suit is immovable property in the Code of Civil Procedure?
A)
Order 5, Rule 30
B)
Order 9, Rule 12
C)
Order 7, Rule 3
D)
Order 10, Rule 22
Under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Order 7 deals with the 'Plaint'. Specifically, Order 7, Rule 3 addresses the requirement for describing immovable property. It states that where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify those boundaries or numbers.
Analysis of other options:
- Order 5 deals with the 'Issue and Service of Summons'. Rule 30 is not the primary provision for describing the subject matter of a suit.
- Order 9 deals with 'Appearance of Parties and Consequence of Non-appearance'. Rule 12 relates to the procedure when a party fails to appear.
- Order 10 deals with 'Examination of Parties by the Court'. Rule 22 is not the provision for describing immovable property in a suit.
A contract to perform a promise or discharge the liability of a third party is called
A)
Contract of indemnity
B)
Contract of agency
C)
Contract of guarantee
D)
Contract of warranty
Step-by-step reasoning:
1. **Definition of Contract of Guarantee**: Under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a 'contract of guarantee' is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. It involves three parties: the Principal Debtor (who owes the debt), the Creditor (to whom the debt is owed), and the Surety (who gives the guarantee).
2. **Analysis of Option (a) Contract of Indemnity**: A contract of indemnity is a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person. It is a primary liability, whereas a guarantee is a secondary liability.
3. **Analysis of Option (b) Contract of Agency**: This is a relationship where one person (the agent) is authorized to act on behalf of another (the principal) to create legal relations with third parties. It does not specifically deal with discharging the liability of a third party.
4. **Analysis of Option (d) Contract of Warranty**: A warranty is a promise or representation made by a seller regarding the quality or nature of goods. If the warranty is breached, the buyer can claim damages, but it is not a promise to discharge the liability of a third party.
Conclusion: The description provided in the question matches the legal definition of a Contract of Guarantee.
A ____________ is said to take place when the High Court calls for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court and passes an appropriate order.
A)
reference
B)
review
C)
revision
D)
appeal
The question describes the legal process of 'Revision' as provided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.
1. **Revision (Option c):** Revision is the power of the High Court to call for the records of any case decided by a subordinate court to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the order, or whether any procedural error has occurred. It is a discretionary power used to ensure that subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction.
2. **Reference (Option a):** Under Section 113 of the CPC, a reference occurs when a subordinate court seeks the opinion of the High Court on a question of law regarding the validity of an act or a statute.
3. **Review (Option b):** Under Section 114 and Order 47, a review is an application made to the *same court* that passed the decree or order to reconsider its own decision due to a discovery of new evidence or a manifest error.
4. **Appeal (Option d):** An appeal is a statutory right to move to a higher court to challenge the decision of a lower court on facts or law. Unlike revision, which is discretionary and focused on jurisdictional errors, an appeal is a continuation of the original suit.
At the time of framing of issues Court seek light from
A)
Plaint
B)
Written statement
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
Neither (a) nor (b)
Under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the 'framing of issues' is a critical stage in a civil suit. Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
1. The Plaint (Option a): This is the pleading filed by the plaintiff stating their claims and the facts supporting those claims.
2. The Written Statement (Option b): This is the pleading filed by the defendant in response to the plaint, where they admit or deny the allegations made by the plaintiff.
According to Order XIV of the CPC, the court examines the pleadings to determine the points of contention. Since 'pleadings' are defined as the Plaint and the Written Statement, the court must look at both documents to identify which facts are admitted and which are disputed. Only the disputed material facts are framed as 'issues' for trial. Therefore, the court seeks light from both the Plaint and the Written Statement.
A suit filed on behalf of a minor
A)
Cannot be withdrawn
B)
Can be withdrawn as a matter of right
C)
Can be withdrawn only with the leave of the Court
D)
None of the above
Under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the withdrawal of a suit is governed by Order XXIII. While a general plaintiff may withdraw a suit as a matter of right (provided it is unconditional), a suit filed on behalf of a minor (or a person of unsound mind) is subject to the protective jurisdiction of the court. Because a minor is legally incompetent to contract or waive their legal rights, a 'next friend' or guardian ad litem cannot unilaterally withdraw a suit if it is detrimental to the minor's interests. Therefore, the court must exercise its discretion to ensure that the withdrawal is in the best interest of the minor. Consequently, such a suit can only be withdrawn with the 'leave of the Court' (permission), as the court acts as the ultimate guardian of the minor's rights in the litigation process.
Which Schedule in the Indian Constitution specifies the powers, authority, and responsibilities of Panchayats?
A)
Fourth Schedule
B)
Sixth Schedule
C)
Seventh Schedule
D)
Eleventh Schedule
The Eleventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution was added by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992. It specifies the powers, authority, and responsibilities of the Panchayats, containing a list of 29 functional items (such as agriculture, land improvement, minor irrigation, and poverty alleviation programs) that the state governments may devolve to the Panchayats.
Why other options are incorrect:
- a. Fourth Schedule: Deals with the allocation of seats in the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) to the States and Union Territories.
- b. Sixth Schedule: Deals with the administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.
- c. Seventh Schedule: Deals with the division of powers between the Union and the States through three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List.
The appropriate writ issued by Supreme Court to quash the appointment of a person to a public office is
A)
Certiorari
B)
Mandamus
C)
Prohibition
D)
Quo-Warranto
The question asks for the specific writ used to challenge the legality of a person's claim to a public office.
1. **Quo-Warranto (Correct):** Literally meaning 'by what authority,' this writ is issued by the court to inquire into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to a public office. If it is found that the person is not entitled to hold the office, the court can quash the appointment and oust the person from that office.
2. **Certiorari (Incorrect):** This writ is issued to a lower court or tribunal to quash an order already passed, usually on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is used to review judicial or quasi-judicial acts, not specifically to challenge the title to a public office.
3. **Mandamus (Incorrect):** Meaning 'we command,' this writ is issued to a public official, public body, corporation, inferior court, or government agency to perform a legal duty that they have failed or refused to perform. It is a command for action, not a challenge to the authority of an appointment.
4. **Prohibition (Incorrect):** This writ is issued by a higher court to a lower court or quasi-judicial body to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice. It is preventive in nature (stopping a proceeding) rather than curative (quashing an appointment).
Which of the following Articles promote the idea of equal justice and to provide free legal aid to the poor?
A)
Article 38
B)
Article 39
C)
Article 39 A
D)
Article 41
The correct answer is Article 39A. This Article was inserted into the Constitution of India by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. It is a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) that mandates the State to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity and provides free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.
Analysis of other options:
- Article 38: Directs the State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people (social, economic, and political justice).
- Article 39: Outlines certain principles of policy to be followed by the State, such as right to adequate means of livelihood and equitable distribution of resources.
- Article 41: Directs the State to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement.
Which famous case involved the term “basic structure” of the Constitution?
A)
Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala (1973)
B)
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978)
C)
Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan (1997)
D)
Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992)
The 'Basic Structure Doctrine' was established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala (1973). In this case, a 13-judge bench ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the 'basic structure' or essential features of the Constitution (such as secularism, federalism, and the separation of powers).
Why other options are incorrect:
- b. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): This case is primarily known for expanding the scope of 'personal liberty' under Article 21 and establishing the 'due process of law' concept.
- c. Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan (1997): This case is famous for laying down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at workplaces.
- d. Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992): This case dealt with the legality of reservations (Mandal Commission) and established the 50% ceiling limit for reservations.
The President of India can dissolve the House of People on the recommendation of the
A)
Vice President
B)
Chief Justice
C)
Cabinet
D)
Council of Ministers
Under the Indian Constitution, the President is the nominal executive head, while the real executive power is vested in the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. According to Article 74(1) of the Constitution of India, there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President, who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice. The power to dissolve the Lok Sabha (House of the People) is exercised by the President on the advice/recommendation of the Council of Ministers. While the 'Cabinet' is the inner core of the Council of Ministers, the constitutional term used in the framework of executive advice to the President is the 'Council of Ministers'. Therefore, option (d) is the most legally precise answer.
At the first instance, the President can issue a proclamation of financial emergency for a period of
A)
Fifteen days
B)
Two months
C)
One month
D)
Six months
Under Article 360 of the Constitution of India, the President has the power to proclaim a Financial Emergency if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability or credit of India, or any part of its territory, is threatened. According to the constitutional provisions, such a proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. While the proclamation takes effect immediately, it must be approved by Parliament within two months. Once approved, the proclamation remains in force for a period of six months at a time. Therefore, at the first instance (and for each subsequent extension), the proclamation is effective for a period of six months. Options a, b, and c are incorrect as they do not align with the statutory duration specified for the validity of the emergency proclamation under the Indian Constitution.
What is not taken from British Constitution in the Constitution of India?
A)
Parliamentary rule
B)
Single citizenship
C)
Fundamental Rights
D)
Cabinet System
The Constitution of India is a blend of various global constitutional features. To determine what was NOT taken from the British Constitution, we analyze the options:
1. **Parliamentary rule (Option a):** India adopted the Westminster model of parliamentary government from the United Kingdom, including the concept of a legislature and an executive responsible to it.
2. **Single citizenship (Option b):** Unlike the USA (which has dual citizenship), India adopted the British concept of single citizenship to promote national integration.
3. **Fundamental Rights (Option c):** The concept of Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Indian Constitution) was primarily inspired by the **Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution**, not the British Constitution. While the UK has a history of common law rights, the structured 'Bill of Rights' model is American.
4. **Cabinet System (Option d):** The Cabinet system, where a small group of senior ministers leads the government and is collectively responsible to the parliament, is a hallmark of the British constitutional system and was adopted by India.
Therefore, Fundamental Rights is the correct answer as it was borrowed from the USA.
‘Right to life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include ‘right to die’. This observation was made by the Supreme Court in
A)
P. Rathinam V. Union of India
B)
Gian Kaur V. State of Punjab
C)
Both (a) and (b)
D)
None of the above
The legal evolution of the 'Right to Die' under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is marked by two landmark judgments. In P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court initially held that the 'right to life' included the 'right to die', thereby striking down Section 309 of the IPC (which criminalized attempted suicide). However, this view was overturned in the landmark case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996). In Gian Kaur, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that Article 21 protects the 'right to life' as a right to live with human dignity, and it does not encompass a 'right to die' or a 'right to terminate one's own life'. The court clarified that the right to life is a natural right, whereas the right to die is an unnatural act. Therefore, the observation that the right to life does not include the right to die was made in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab.
The word ‘Secular’ was added in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by
A)
First Amendment Act
B)
Seventh Amendment Act
C)
Forty-Second Amendment Act
D)
Forty-Fourth Amendment Act
The Preamble to the Constitution of India was amended only once in its history. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, enacted during the Emergency under the government of Indira Gandhi, introduced three new words into the Preamble: 'Socialist', 'Secular', and 'Integrity'.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) First Amendment Act (1951): This amendment primarily dealt with the Ninth Schedule and restrictions on freedom of speech, not the Preamble.
- Option (b) Seventh Amendment Act (1956): This amendment focused on the reorganization of states and territories.
- Option (c) Forty-Second Amendment Act (1976): Correct. This is often called the 'Mini-Constitution' because of the extensive changes it made, including adding 'Secular' to the Preamble.
- Option (d) Forty-Fourth Amendment Act (1978): This amendment was passed by the Janata Government to undo several changes made by the 42nd Amendment (specifically regarding fundamental rights and emergency powers), but it did not remove the word 'Secular' from the Preamble.
The Constitution of India embodies the parliamentary form of government because:
A)
The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
B)
The Council of Ministers is responsible to Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
C)
The President, the head of the executive, is answerable to Parliament.
D)
The Prime Minister, the Head of the Cabinet, is accountable to Parliament.
The parliamentary system of government is characterized by the executive being derived from and accountable to the legislature. In the Indian Constitution, this is specifically embodied in Article 75(3), which states that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People (Lok Sabha).
Step-by-step reasoning:
1. **Collective Responsibility**: This is the bedrock of the parliamentary system. It means that the ministry stays in power only as long as it enjoys the confidence of the lower house (Lok Sabha). If a no-confidence motion is passed, the entire council must resign.
2. **Why Option B is incorrect**: The Council of Ministers is NOT responsible to the Rajya Sabha. While they can be questioned in both houses, a motion of no-confidence can only be passed in the Lok Sabha.
3. **Why Option C is incorrect**: The President is the nominal head (De Jure head) of the executive. Under the Indian Constitution, the President is not answerable to Parliament for the administration of the government; rather, the Council of Ministers (the real executive) is.
4. **Why Option D is incorrect**: While the Prime Minister is the leader of the cabinet, the constitutional requirement for the parliamentary form is the 'collective responsibility' of the entire Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha, rather than just the individual accountability of the PM to the Parliament as a whole.
The transfer of Judges from one High Court to another High Court may be made by the:
A)
President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of that High Court.
B)
Chief Justice of the concerned High Court
C)
Governor of the concerned State in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
D)
President of India after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
According to Article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President may, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, transfer a Judge from one High Court to any other High Court. This power is exercised to ensure the efficient administration of justice and the independence of the judiciary.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because the primary consultation must be with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), not just the Chief Justice of the specific High Court.
- Option (b) is incorrect because the Chief Justice of a High Court does not have the constitutional authority to transfer judges; this is a federal power vested in the President.
- Option (c) is incorrect because the Governor of a State has no role in the appointment or transfer of High Court judges.
- Option (d) is correct as it accurately reflects the constitutional mandate under Article 222.
Which constitutional amendment added the provision that a member of either House of state legislature belonging to any political party who is disqualified on the ground of defection shall also be disqualified to be appointed as a minister?
A)
90th
B)
91st
C)
92nd
D)
93rd
The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, was enacted to curb the evil of political defection and limit the size of the Council of Ministers. It introduced several key changes:
1. It limited the total number of ministers (including the Prime Minister/Chief Minister) to 15% of the total strength of the House.
2. Crucially, it amended the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) to provide that a member of either House of Parliament or of a State Legislature who is disqualified on the ground of defection shall also be disqualified to be appointed as a minister until such person is duly elected again.
Analysis of other options:
- 90th Amendment: Related to the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram.
- 92nd Amendment: Related to the inclusion of Manipuri and Bodo languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
- 93rd Amendment: Related to the reservation of seats for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in educational institutions.
A resolution passed under Clause (1) of Article 249 shall remain in force for such period not exceeding
A)
Three months
B)
Six months
C)
Nine months
D)
Twelve months
Article 249 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in the national interest.
1. According to Article 249(1), if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest that Parliament should make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List, the Parliament becomes empowered to make laws for the whole or any part of India on that matter.
2. Article 249(2) specifically states that such a resolution shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one year (twelve months) from the date of its passage.
3. However, the Rajya Sabha can pass a subsequent resolution to extend this period for a further period of one year at a time.
Therefore, the initial period for which a resolution passed under Clause (1) of Article 249 remains in force is twelve months.
The Concurrent List was described as a ‘Twilight Zone’, as it were for both the Union and the States are competent to legislate in this field without coming in to conflict” is stated by
A)
Basu, D.D.
B)
Dicey, A.V.
C)
Pyle, M.V.
D)
Ambedkar, B.
The description of the Concurrent List as a 'Twilight Zone' is attributed to the renowned constitutional expert Durga Das Basu (D.D. Basu) in his authoritative commentary on the Constitution of India. He used this metaphor to describe the overlapping jurisdiction where both the Union (Central Government) and the State Governments have the power to legislate. While the Union's law generally prevails in case of a conflict (under the doctrine of repugnancy), the shared nature of this list creates a 'twilight' area of shared competence.
Other options are incorrect because:
- A.V. Dicey is a British jurist known for the 'Rule of Law', not for specific commentary on the Indian Concurrent List.
- M.V. Pyle is not a recognized authority on Indian Constitutional Law in this context.
- B.R. Ambedkar, while the architect of the Constitution, focused on the structural and social justice aspects of the law rather than using this specific descriptive terminology in later legal commentaries.
Originally the Supreme Court consisted of a Chief Justice and
A)
Seven other judges
B)
Twelve other judges
C)
Thirteen other judges
D)
Fifteen other judges
According to the original composition of the Supreme Court of India under the Constitution of 1950, Article 124(1) stipulated that the Supreme Court would consist of a Chief Justice of India and not more than seven other judges, until Parliament by law prescribed a larger number. Over time, the number of judges was increased through various amendments and acts (such as the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act) to meet the increasing caseload, eventually reaching the current strength of 34 judges (including the CJI). Therefore, the 'original' strength was the Chief Justice and seven other judges.