Multiple Choice QuestionsShazia’s case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three storey houses on either side of Shazia’s house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad’s main distributors for a major soft drinks company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia’s house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying only Rule B to Shazia’s case, you would decide in favour of:
Javed and Sandeep because Shazia can easily hoist a flag below 70 feet.
Shazia because she has the right to put her land to any use and the court cannot go into her intentions for hoisting a flag at 75 feet.
Shazia because she has the absolute right to space above her land.
Shazia because she has the absolute right to space above her land.
Applying only Rules A and B to Shazia’s case, you would decide:
In favour of Shazia only under Rule A.
In favour of Shazia under Rule A as well as B.
Against Shazia under Rule B.
Against Shazia under Rule B.
Applying only Rule B and C to Ramesh’s case, you would decide:
In favour of Ramesh only under Rule B.
In favour of Ramesh under Rule B as well as C.
Against Ramesh under Rule C.
Against Ramesh under Rule C.
Applying Rule C to Shazia’s case, you would decide:
In her favour because hoisting a 75 feet high flag is reasonable.
Against her because a 75 feet high flag is not reasonable.
Against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land.
Against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land.
D.
Against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land.
Principle: (1). The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. (2). The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth or any of them.
Facts: The Government of Rajasthan, passed an order providing for reservations for the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (including Muslims), and Women, in all institutions of higher education, including private educational institutions, both aided as well as unaided, in the following manner: Scheduled Caste- 15%; Scheduled Tribe- 7.5%, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (including Muslims) - 27%
I. The reservation policy of the government is violative of the principle of equality envisaged in the Constitution
II. The reservation policy is unconstitutional because it is based on ‘caste’ which is a prohibited marker
III. Reservation does not violate equality clause as it entails “like should be treated like and unlike should be treated differently.”
IV. Reservation does not violate equality clause as the Constitution itself enables the State to make special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
I is correct
I and II are both correct answers
III is correct answer
III is correct answer
Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.
Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?
No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving
No, this is not a negligent act.
Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly
Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly
Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property with an intention to take it, is said to commit theft.
Facts: Y cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking it out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Y could not take away the tree.
Y can be prosecuted for theft
Y cannot be prosecuted for theft
Y can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
Y can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
Principle: Injuria Sine Damnum i.e. Injury (violation of legal right) without damage
Facts: X, who was the returning officer at a polling booth in Amethi, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of Y in the recent UP elections, even though Y was an eligible voter. The candidate in whose favour Y wanted to vote, was declared elected. Give the appropriate answer-
Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast vote, which is a fundamental right.
Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast vote, which is a legal right
Y cannot sue X because there is no injury or damage caused to Y
Y cannot sue X because there is no injury or damage caused to Y
Principle: Proposal (communication) + Acceptance (communication) + Consideration = Contract. The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Facts: X’s nephew absconded from home. He sent his servant in search of the boy. After the servant had left, X by handbills offered to pay Rs. 501 to anybody finding his nephew. The servant came to know of this offer only after he had already traced the missing child. He, therefore, brought an action to recover the reward
His action would fail because he was not aware of the offer
His action would not fail because it was a general offer
The fact that he was not aware of the offer does not make any difference and hence it was a valid contract. It is a mere formality
The fact that he was not aware of the offer does not make any difference and hence it was a valid contract. It is a mere formality
Assertion (A): All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Reason (R): Institutions established by the minorities are not entitled to governmental aid and government is not under an obligation to give aid.
Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
A is true but R is false
A is true but R is false
Switch
