(Paper) Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) PG Exam Papers - 2020
"We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 13 SCC 153. In this judgment, the posts in Prasar Bharati were classified into four Groups–A to D. The precise question that arose before the Court is set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory benefit of 3 per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied insofar as identified posts in Groups A and B are concerned, since these posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. After noticing the arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held:
We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation in promotions as propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations in promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question whether reservations could be permitted in matters of promotion under Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations in promotion are not permitted under our constitutional scheme.
The respondent argued that the answer to Question 7 in Indra Sawhney squarely covers the situation on hand and the reasons outlined by the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at… must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B.
We do not agree with the respondent‟s submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the context of reservations in favour of backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of Article 16(4).
The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for creating such preferential treatment under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of the factors such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. The basis for providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD."
Source: Excerpt taken from a Judgment of three judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose & V. Ramasubramaniyam., JJ.
1. The above passage has been taken from which of the following recent judgments, relating to the question of reservation in promotions for the disabled persons?
a) National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training.
b) Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
c) Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
d) Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B
2. Which of the following is true in context of the scheme provided under Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, relating to reservation in promotion?
a) Reservation in promotion can only be granted to the class of citizens mentioned under Article 16 (4).
b) Reservation in promotion cannot be granted to a class of citizen provided by the virtue of Article 16 (1).
c) The scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to any class of citizens under the scheme of Article 16 (1).
d) Reservation in promotion defeats the scheme of Article 16 (1) and Article 15 (1).
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
3. The Union government has issued an office memorandum under which 3% reservation has been provided to the persons with disability, apart from the reservations provided to different class of citizens such as 27% for OBCs, 14% to SCs and & 7% to STs. Now, the total percentage of reservation has reached 51%, which is against the judgment given in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. Now, choose the most appropriate option amongst the following.
a) The reservation provided to persons with disability is constitutionally valid as it falls within the horizontal scheme of reservation.
b) The judgment in Indira Sawhney is not applicable to the persons with disability and hence such reservation is valid.
c) The reservation provided to persons with disability is invalid as in no case reservation can increase 50%.
d) The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and hence unconstitutional.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A
4. What is the meaning of the ―Catch-up‖ rule associated with the matters of seniority in reservation in promotion?
a) If the junior candidate promoted on the basis of reservation gets promoted to further grade by the time senior general category candidate is promoted to earlier grade, the question of seniority does not arise.
b) A reserved category candidate promoted on the basis of reservation earlier than his senior general category candidates in the feeder category, shall become junior when general category senior candidate too gets promoted.
c) The candidate promoted to higher grade on the basis of reservation remains senior even if his senior is promoted to the same grade.
d) None of the above.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B
5. The Article 16 (4A), provides for which of the following?
a) Catch-up rule.
b) Carry forward rule.
c) Consequential seniority.
d) All of the above.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
6. The scheme of reservation in promotion is limited to which of the following as per the text of Article 16 (4A)?
a) Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes.
b) Backward class of citizens.
c) PWD candidates.
d) All of the above.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A
7. Government policy of no reservation in promotion for class I and II posts was initially:
a) Struck down in C.A. Rajendra case.
b) Struck down in M. Nagraj case.
c) Upheld in Jarnail Singh case.
d) Upheld in C.A. Rajendra case.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION D
8. Jarnail Singh case overruled the M. Nagraj on the issue of:
a) Collection of quantifiable data to determine inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs.
b) Collection of quantifiable data to determine the backwardness.
c) Collection of data on efficiency of administration.
d) All the above.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B
9. Creamy layer concept is applicable to
a) All reservations
b) SC ST reservations
c) OBC reservation
d) Only horizontal reservation
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
10. In Vivekanand Tiwari, Supreme Court held that the unit for reservation in universities should be:
a) University as a whole
b) Faculties of the University
c) Departments of the University
d) (a) and (b)
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
It will be relevant to refer to the statement made by the contemnor which was made and read out before this Court by the contemnor on 20.08.2020, which reads as under:
"I have gone through the judgment of this Hon‟ble Court. I am pained that I have been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold - not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard - for over three decades, at some personal and professional cost. I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I have been grossly misunderstood. I am shocked that the court holds me guilty of “malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice. I am dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my motives to launch such an attack. I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the suo-motu notice was issued, nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel. I find it hard to believe that the Court finds my tweet “has the effect of destabilizing the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy”. I can only reiterate that these two tweets represented my bona-fide beliefs, the expression of which must be permissible in any democracy. Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself. I believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the constitutional order. We are living through that moment in our history when higher principles must trump routine obligations, when saving the constitutional order must come before personal and professional niceties, when considerations of the present must not come in the way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself. My tweets were nothing but a small attempt to discharge what I considered to be my highest duty at this juncture in the history of our republic. I did not tweet in a fit of absence mindedness. It would be insincere and contemptuous on my part to offer an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and continues to be my bona-fide belief. Therefore, I can only humbly paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen."
Source: Excerpt taken from the Judgment delivered by Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai & Krishna Murari, J.J.
11. The above passage has been taken from which of the following recent cases relating to the Criminal Contempt of Court?
a) In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr.
b) The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr.
c) Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan
d) Union of India v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A
12. The Source of power of the Supreme Court to take suo-motu cognizance of Contempt of the Court has been provided under which of the following?
a) Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
b) Article 129 r/w Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
c) Article 129
d) Article 129 r/w Article 141.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
13. Which of the following could be a valid defence for the contemnor in a contempt proceeding against him?
a) Statements are bona-fide fair criticism without attributing motives to the judges.
b) Statements are the personal opinion of the person and do not have the capacity to influence the thinking of public at large.
c) Statements are based on the quotes from retired judges of the Supreme Court.
d) Statements are mere opinions which does not fall under the category of the term "scandalising the court."
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A
14. In which of the following cases, the apex court held that, "Contempt jurisdiction should not be used by judges to uphold their own dignity. In the free market-place of ideas, criticism about the judicial system or the judges should be welcomed, so long as criticisms do not impair or hamper the 'administration of justice'."?
a) Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan
b) P.N. Duda v. V. P. Shivshankar
c) A.K. Gopalan v. Noordeen
d) Hari Singh Nagra v. Kapil Sibal
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B
15. Which of the following can be stated as not true about the intent of the contemnor as mentioned in the passage above?
a) He believes in the dignity and independence of judiciary and his act, further strengthens his belief.
b) His statements hold the sanctity of the institution to be of utmost importance and his actions will uphold the same.
c) He compares himself with the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi and puts himself at the same pedestal.
d) His statements are criticism of an individual and not the institution itself and such criticism is quintessential for a healthy democracy.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
16. A comparison of the Freedom of Speech and Expression between the text of Constitution of India and the U.S. Constitution may lead to many conclusions. Which of the following is not a conclusion of such a comparison?
a) The U.S. Constitution expressly mentions about the Freedom of Press but does not mention about the Freedom of Expression.
b) The Freedom of Press though not expressly mentioned under Article 19 (1) (a), it is implicit under the Freedom of Speech.
c) The idea of Freedom of Speech and Expression is much broader in India as compared to that in the U.S. Constitution.
d) The Freedom of Speech and Expression under both the constitutions is identical in terms of its extent.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
17. Which of the following case is not related to the Contempt of Court as a restriction to the Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a)?
a) In Re Arundhati Roy, (2002) 3 SCC 343.
b) Hari Singh Nagra v. Kapil Sibal, AIR 2010 SC 55.
c) In Re Harijai Singh, (1996) 6 SCC 466.
d) Subramaniam Swamy v. UOI, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION D
18. In which of the following cases it was held that holding Dharna in front of Supreme Court in which lawyers too, take part is not by itself Contempt of Court if the access to the Court is not hindered?
a) Hiralal Dixit v. Union of India
b) J.R. Parashar v. Prashant Bhushan
c) Tarun Bharat Singh v. Union of India
d) P. N. Duda v. V. P. Shivshankar
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B
19. Justice Krishna Iyer in (1) observed that normative guideline for Judges to observe in contempt jurisdiction is not to be (2) even where distortions and criticism oversteps the limitation.
a) (1) S. Mulgaokar, (2) hypersensitive
b) (1) Shamsher Singh, (2) provocative
c) (1) Hira Lal, (2) emotional
d) (1) Ediga Annama, (2) sensitive
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A
20. Late Arun Jaitely, in Parliament had said that the Supreme Court is destroying the edifice of Parliament brick by brick. Another member responded by saying transparency in judicial appointments is required as half the judges in the country lack integrity. Are these statements Contempt of Court after the Prashant Bhushan 2020 judgment?
a) Yes, because MPs are also bound by Contempt law
b) No, because MPs are exempted from Contempt law.
c) Jaitely can‘t be punished as he is no more but the other member can be held liable.
d) No, because the statements made in Parliament are protected.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION D
In taking this view, Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar, speaking for a majority of five judges, relied upon the judgment of Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the US Supreme Court in Wolf v Colorado, which held:
"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police … is basic to a free society… We have no hesitation in saying that were a State affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy it would run counter to the guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment."
While the Court observed that the Indian Constitution does not contain a guarantee similar to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, it proceeded to hold that:
"Nevertheless, these extracts would show that an unauthorised intrusion into a person‘s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation. An English Common Law maxim asserts that "every man‘s house is his castle" and in Semayne case [5 Coke 91: 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 104 at p. 105] where this was applied, it was stated that "the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress as well as for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose". We are not unmindful of the fact that Semayne case [(1604) 5 Coke 91: 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 104 at p. 105] was concerned with the law relating to executions in England, but the passage extracted has a validity quite apart from the context of the particular decision. It embodies an abiding principle which transcends mere protection of property rights and expounds a concept of "personal liberty" which does not rest on any element of feudalism or on any theory of freedom which has ceased to be of value."
Source: Excerpt taken from the Judgment delivered by a 9 Judge bench of the Supreme Court in 2017 and authored by Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud. J.
21. The above passage is from which of the following judgments?
a) Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
b) Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 10.
c) Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
d) Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 10.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
22. Which of the following is directly related with the central idea of the passage mentioned above?
a) Right to Privacy of an individual, being part of the Right to Life.
b) The extent and scope of the 'ordered liberty' as a tenet of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
c) Right to Life of an individual apart from mere animal existence.
d) All of the above
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION D
23. The above passage mentions, "Every man‟s house is his castle." Who amongst the following has stated this quote in the Semayne‘s Case?
a) Justice Rowland.
b) Justice Holmes.
c) Lord Justice A.W. Semens.
d) Justice Blackburn.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B
24. The above passage makes a mention of the judgment delivered by Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar. Which one of the following judgments is in context here?
a) Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
b) M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
c) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
d) Rustom Cavasji Cooper v. Union of India
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A
25. Which of the following is not an interpretation of the Right to Privacy as explained by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy judgment?
a) The destruction by the State of a sanctified personal space, of body and mind is violative of the guarantee against arbitrary state action.
b) The intersection between one‘s mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to the freedom of self-determination.
c) The privacy of an individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised.
d) The guarantee of privacy is a guarantee against the arbitrary State action.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C
26. Which of the following is true in relation to the scope of the newly evolved 'Right to Privacy'?
a) The Right to Privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a miniscule fraction of the population which is affected.
b) The majoritarian concept applies to the Constitutional Rights and the Courts must adhere to the majoritarian view.
c) One‘s sexual orientation is undoubtedly not an attribute of privacy.
d) Right to Privacy is an unrestricted and inviolable right, outside the fetters of any State action.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A
27. In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that, “Sexual orientation is an attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.”?
a) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.
b) Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
c) NALSA v. Union of India.
d) Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Fundation.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A
28. Speaking for four of the nine judges, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, observes, “Individually, these information silos may seem inconsequential. In aggregation, they disclose the nature of the personality; food habits, language, health, hobbies, sexual preferences, friendships, ways of dress and political affiliation.” Which of the following is in context of the above statement?
a) Right to Privacy.
b) Informational/Data Privacy.
c) The Aadhaar Act, 2016.
d) None of the above.
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B
