Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
1. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which of the following statements best reflects the distinction made by the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat between Section 173 BNSS and Section 154 CrPC regarding preliminary inquiries?A. Section 173(3) BNSS permits a preliminary inquiry only when the information received does not disclose a cognizable...
1. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which of the following statements best reflects the distinction made by the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat between Section 173 BNSS and Section 154 CrPC regarding preliminary inquiries?
A. Section 173(3) BNSS permits a preliminary inquiry only when the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, mirroring the Lalita Kumari guidelines under CrPC.
B. Section 173(1) BNSS mandates FIR registration for all cognizable offences, while Section 173(3) allows a preliminary inquiry even if the information discloses a cognizable offence, provided the offence is punishable by 3–7 years and prior permission is obtained.
C. Section 173 BNSS abolishes preliminary inquiries entirely, requiring immediate FIR registration for any cognizable offence, irrespective of severity.
D. A preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS is compulsory for offences punishable by 7+ years, while offences under 3 years require direct FIR registration.
Correct Answer: B
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that Section 173(1) BNSS (like Section 154 CrPC) mandates FIR registration if the information discloses a cognizable offence. However, Section 173(3) BNSS introduces a new exception: for offences punishable by 3–7 years, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted even if the information reveals a cognizable offence, provided prior approval from a DSP-rank officer is obtained (unlike CrPC, where Lalita Kumari allowed inquiries only where the information did not disclose a cognizable offence).
2. Consider the following statements regarding the differences between Section 156(3) CrPC and Section 175(3) BNSS:
1. Under Section 175(3) BNSS, the Magistrate is mandatorily required to hear the concerned police officer before ordering an FIR registration, unlike under Section 156(3) CrPC.
2. Section 175(3) BNSS introduces a new requirement where the complainant must first approach the Superintendent of Police with an affidavit before moving the Magistrate.
3. The Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC could act mechanically, but Section 175(3) BNSS ensures a reasoned judicial order by mandating an inquiry.
4. Section 175(3) BNSS completely bars the Magistrate from ordering an FIR if the police refuse registration, unlike Section 156(3) CrPC.
Which of the above statements are correct?
A) 1, 2 and 3 only
B) 2 and 4 only
C) 1 and 3 only
D) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Correct Answer: A
Cause Title: OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139
Explanation: The Court highlighted the changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in Section 175 (corresponding to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C.), noting that Section 174(4) of BNSS is a new addition providing additional safeguards for public servants before an FIR can be registered against them. These safeguards include requiring a report from their superior officer detailing the facts and circumstances of the incident and considering the accused public servant's account of the situation that led to the alleged incident.
The Court highlighted three new safeguards in BNSS Section 175(3) (absent in Cr.P.C. 156(3)): 1) mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police (with copy and affidavit); 2) Magistrate's power of inquiry; and 3) consideration of the police's refusal to register the FIR. These codify existing safeguards against misuse of magisterial powers.
3. In a civil suit, Defendant 'X' died during the pendency of proceedings. The Trial Court, after conducting an inquiry under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC, impleaded 'Y' (X's son) as the legal heir. 'Y' did not object to his impleadment at that stage. Two years later, 'Y' filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, seeking deletion of his name, arguing that under Muslim personal law, he was not the rightful legal heir of 'X' since his father had predeceased his mother. Choose the most appropriate option.
A) Order I Rule 10 CPC allows deletion of a party at any stage, so 'Y' can challenge his impleadment even belatedly.
B) Since 'Y' failed to object during Order XXII Rule 4 inquiry, the issue is barred by res judicata, and his later application under Order I Rule 10 is impermissible.
C) The Trial Court must re-examine 'Y's claim under Muslim law, as Order I Rule 10 overrides Order XXII Rule 4.
D) 'Y' should have filed a revision petition before the High Court instead of invoking Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM VERSUS PRAKASAN & ORS.
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that once a legal heir is impleaded after an Order XXII Rule 4 inquiry without objections, a subsequent challenge under Order I Rule 10 CPC is barred by res judicata.
4. In a commercial dispute, Plaintiff 'X' filed a suit against Defendant 'Y'. The Commercial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the claim was barred by limitation. 'X' appealed to the High Court under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC and simultaneously sought a temporary injunction to restrain 'Y' from alienating the disputed property during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court granted the injunction. Decide.
A) The injunction is valid because Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC allows interim relief in appeals against plaint rejection.
B) The injunction is invalid because a rejected plaint ceases to exist, and no interim relief can operate unless the plaint is revived.
C) The High Court can grant injunctions in such appeals if the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff.
D) The injunction is permissible since the appeal is a continuation of the suit.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: IEEE MUMBAI SECTION WELFARE ASSOCIATION VERSUS GLOBAL IEEE INSTITUTE FOR ENGINEERS, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 658
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that once a plaint is rejected, it becomes non-existent in the eyes of law. Thus, no injunction can survive unless the plaint is restored by the appellate court.
No Temporary Injunction Can Be Granted In Appeal Against Rejection Of Plaint : Supreme Court
5. In a high-profile corruption case, Accused A is arrested, and during police interrogation under Section 161 CrPC, he makes a confessional statement implicating Accused B (a co-accused). The prosecution relies on this statement to oppose Accused B's anticipatory bail plea, arguing that it establishes a prima facie case. Choose the most appropriate option.
A) The confessional statement of Accused A can be considered against Accused B at the bail stage since it directly implicates him.
B) The court can partially rely on the statement if it finds independent corroboration for Accused B's involvement.
C) The statement is inadmissible against Accused B at the bail stage as it violates Sections 25 & 30 of the Evidence Act and cannot be tested by cross-examination.
D) The statement is admissible only if Accused A turns approver under Section 306 CrPC.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: P KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the statements of accused recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (police interrogation) cannot be used against co-accused at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail.
6. 'A' entered into an Advance Sale Agreement (ATS) with 'B' to purchase a property for ₹55.5 lakhs. 'A' paid ₹20 lakhs as "earnest money" under the ATS, with the clause that failure to pay the balance ₹35.5 lakhs within 4 months would result in forfeiture of the earnest money. 'A' defaulted, and 'B' forfeited the ₹20 lakhs. 'A' sued, arguing that the forfeiture is a penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act, as no actual loss was proven, and ₹20 lakhs was a part-payment of the sale price, not earnest money.
A) Forfeiture of earnest money is valid even without proving loss, as it is not a penalty under Section 74.
B) Section 74 applies, and 'B' must prove actual loss to forfeit any amount.
C) The ₹20 lakhs was a part-payment, so forfeiture is illegal unless 'B' shows disproportionate loss.
D) Forfeiture is valid only if the ATS explicitly mentions it as a penalty.
Correct Answer: A
Cause Title: K.R. SURESH VERSUS R. POORNIMA & ORS., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 522
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that earnest money (a security deposit to bind the contract) is not a penalty, so Section 74 (which covers penalties and "reasonable compensation") does not apply.
7. Assertion (A): After a partition of joint Hindu family property, the share allotted to a coparcener becomes their self-acquired property, which they can sell, transfer, or bequeath without restrictions.
Reason (R): Once partitioned, the property loses its ancestral character, and the coparcener gains absolute ownership rights over their share, independent of the joint family.
Choose the correct option:
A) Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
B) Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
C) (A) is true, but (R) is false.
D) (A) is false, but (R) is true.
Correct Answer: A
Cause Title: ANGADI CHANDRANNA VERSUS SHANKAR & ORS., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 494
Explanation: The court stated that after the joint family property has been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family property, and the shares of the respective parties become their self-acquired properties.
8. In a composite suit for cancellation of a sale deed and recovery of possession, what is the applicable limitation period if cancellation is the main relief?
A) 12 years from the date of dispossession (Article 65 of Limitation Act)
B) No limitation applies since the suit is for declaration of title
C) 3 years from the date of dispossession (Article 58 of Limitation Act)
D) 3 years from the date of knowledge of the sale deed (Article 59 of Limitation Act)
Correct Answer: D
Cause Title: RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS. VERSUS PRASHANT GARG & ORS., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 471
Explanation: The Supreme Court has reiterated that where a composite suit had been filed for cancellation of the sale deed and of possession, the limitation period would have to be adjudged from the primary relief of cancellation which is 3 (three) years, and not the ancillary relief of possession which is 12 (twelve) years.
9. When a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court overrules an earlier judgment, what is the general rule regarding the effect of the new decision?
A. It applies prospectively only if the earlier judgment was widely relied upon.
B. It creates new law from the date of the overruling decision.
C. It applies retrospectively unless the court explicitly states otherwise.
D. It has no effect on pending cases.
Correct Answer: C
Cause Title: DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a subsequent overruling decision merely clarifies or correctly interprets the law and is presumed to have retrospective effect unless expressly made prospective.
10. XYZ Ltd. created an original artistic drawing of a unique gear mechanism for industrial machinery. The company used this drawing to manufacture 50+ units of the gear without registering the design under the Designs Act, 2000. Later, ABC Ltd. copied the gear mechanism and started mass-producing identical products. XYZ Ltd. sued ABC Ltd. for copyright infringement, claiming the drawing was an "artistic work" under the Copyright Act. ABC Ltd. argued that since the drawing was industrially applied over 50 times, it lost copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and could only be protected under the Designs Act (if registered).
Choose the most appropriate option:
A. XYZ Ltd. loses copyright protection automatically because the drawing was industrially reproduced over 50 times.
B. The court must first determine if the drawing is purely an artistic work or a design under the Designs Act. If it's a design, then assess whether it has functional utility or aesthetic appeal.
C. Since the drawing was used industrially, it is only eligible for design protection, and copyright protection ceases irrespective of registration.
D. XYZ Ltd. retains copyright protection because the drawing was never registered under the Designs Act.
Correct Answer: B
Cause Title: Cryogas Equipment Private Limited versus Inox India Limited and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426
Explanation: The Court noted that an 'artistic work' does not automatically lose copyright protection simply because a design based on it has been used in industrial production. It stated that under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, copyright protection for such an artistic work would cease if the resulting design is capable of registration under the Designs Act, remains unregistered, and is applied industrially more than 50 times.
Supreme Court Lays Down Twin Test To Resolve Copyright–Design Conflict Under S15(2) Of Copyright Act
(For comments/feedback, the author can be reached at yash@livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com)