Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

• No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament to enact or re-enact a law

• The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament to make a new law

• The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law.

• The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law.

Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal. Fact: “Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for CAR is Rs. 20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the CAR for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.

• He cannot refuse to sell the CAR because the contract has already been made.

• He can refuse to sell the CAR because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer

• It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent

• It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent

Principle: Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject.
Facts: A minor mortgaged his house in favour of Thakur Das, a money lender, to secure a loan of Rs. 20000. A part of this, i.e. Rs. 10500 was actually advanced to him. While considering the proposed advance, the attorney who was acting for the money lender, received information that the plaintiff was still a minor. Subsequently the minor commenced an action stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage and the same should, therefore, be cancelled. He prayed for setting aside the mortgage. The mortgagee money lender prayed for the refund of Rs. 10500 from the minor

• As a minor’s contract is void, any money advanced to a minor can be recovered.

• A minor’s contract is void ab initio, any money advanced to a minor cannot be recovered.

• A minor’s contract is voidable; any money advanced to a minor can be recovered

• A minor’s contract is voidable; any money advanced to a minor can be recovered

Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
Facts: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterwards, wants to file a suit against Mr. X

• Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound state of mind when he entered into contract.

• Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound state of mind at the time of contract.

• Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract

• Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract

5.

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: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.

Facts: Mr. Sharman, the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur the risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board and which he may possibly clear.

• Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity

• Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence

• Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide

• Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide

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: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.
Fact: X takes his son Y who is three years old, for bathing to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that the son can have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumps into the well to take bath and get his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.

• X has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder

• X has committed murder

• X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind

• X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind