Which one of the following statements is correct? Right to free and compulsory education for all children of the age of 6 to 14 years is:

• a fundamental right enforceable in law

• a fundamental duty

• a directive principle of state policy

• a directive principle of state policy

Affirmative action connotes: I. Measures taken by the state to help the socially disadvantaged groups
II. Positive discrimination
III. Strict quotas for the socially and educationally backward class in school/college admissions and jobs.
Which of the above mentioned is true?

• I and II only

• II only

• I,II and III

• I,II and III

Identify the correct statement:

• Federalism implies a system of government which embodies a division of powers between a central and a number of regional authorities

• Federalism implies a system of government which embodies a division of powers between Legislature, Executive and Judiciary

• Federalism implies a system of Government which embodies Parliamentary supremacy

• Federalism implies a system of Government which embodies Parliamentary supremacy

Consider the following statements:
I. In a recent Supreme Court verdict pronounced by Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Haj subsidy
II. Muslims are not the only beneficiaries of the secular state’s generosity. Hindus have also received substantial financial support from the Government
With reference to the statements mentioned above, which of the following is correct?

• I only

• II only

• Both I and II

• Both I and II

335.

X, a married woman, agreed to live in adultery with B and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, B agreed to pay X Rs. 500 per month for living in adultery and Rs. 500 per month for housekeeping. The agreement is

• Valid

• Void

• Void as to the first object but valid with respect to the second object

• Void as to the first object but valid with respect to the second object

Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?

• Ramu cannot claim damages as he had not resigned from his existing post in anticipation of getting the appointment letter

• Ramu cannot claim damages as there was no formal communication

• Ramu can claim damages as governing body cannot rescind the resolution once passed

• Ramu can claim damages as governing body cannot rescind the resolution once passed

The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose the appropriate answer:

• Mr. X can sue the Railway authorities for the loss suffered

• Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in a over-crowded train

• Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action

• Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action

Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed

• She cannot file a suit because injury to religious feelings is not a legally recognized right

• She cannot file a suit because the Theatre has a fundamental right to speech and expression

• She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria sine damnum)

• She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria sine damnum)

Principle: When an offer is accepted by a person to whom it is made, it becomes a promise. But this promise will become legally binding only when the acceptance of the offer is unconditional.
Facts: Ram makes an offer to sell his house to Shyam for Rs.50 lacs. Shyam accepts this offer but wants to pay the price of the house in five quarterly instalments. Ram does not agree to it. Thereafter Shyam agrees to pay the price of the house in the way as originally desired by Ram. But Ram does not reply to it. Can Shyam compel Ram to sell his house to him?

• Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Shyam ultimately agrees to pay the price as originally desired by Ram

• Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Shyam in the first instance substantially complied with the desire of Ram

• Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Ram’s offer does not exclude the payment of price in instalments

• Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Ram’s offer does not exclude the payment of price in instalments

Principle: Generally an agreement without consideration is not valid. Therefore, in order to make a valid agreement, some consideration which may have some value in the eyes of law, is essentially required.
Facts: William has an old car of which he makes seldom use. He voluntarily enters into an agreement with Smith to sell this car for rupees ten thousand. Thereafter one Anson approaches William and offers to buy that car for rupees one lac as the car was one which Anson has been searching for long. Now William wants to cancel his agreement with Smith and refuses to deliver the car to him saying that consideration (price) for the car promised by Smith is negligible and, therefore, agreement with him can not be said to be valid one.

• William can cancel his agreement with Smith as the consideration involved in that is really inadequate

• William can not cancel his agreement with Smith as the sale of car for rupees ten thousand was voluntary and this price has some value in the eyes of law.

• William can cancel his agreement with Smith as he was ignorant about the value / price of the car for which it could be sold.

• William can cancel his agreement with Smith as he was ignorant about the value / price of the car for which it could be sold.