SAMPLE MOCK

ABOUT MANKAVIT LAW ACADEMY MOCK SERIES

NOTE – This sample mock has been prepared out of various practice mocks which we provided for CLAT PG 2021 exam. Among others, few questions (for example ques 1, 2, 11, 16, 25, 33, 56, 61, 66, 71 etc) which directly matched from our institute’s mocks in CLAT PG 2021 exam is provided here.

SAMPLE MOCK

It is a cardinal principle of the law of contract that the offer and acceptance of an offer must be absolute. It can give no room for doubt. The offer and acceptance must be based or founded on three components, that is, certainty, commitment and communication. However, when the acceptor puts in a new condition while accepting the contract already signed by the proposer, the contract is not complete until the proposer accepts that condition, as held by this Court in Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui and Ors.”

The Court noted that, in Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram, it was held that if the acceptance is conditional, offer can be withdrawn at any moment until absolute acceptance has taken place.

(Excerpted from the judgement delivered by Justices Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee; Citation: LL 2021 SC 5)

(Same passage was asked in CLAT PG 2021)

Question 1 – The above passage is from which recent case delivered in January 2021?

1. M/s. Padia Timber Company(P) Ltd. vs. Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust
2. M/s Saraya Distillery, Sardarbaggar v. Union of India
3. G.M.T.A.P. Co-op. Mkts. Ltd. v. Dy. Registrar, Co-op Societies, Raichur
4. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.

Ans – 1

(Same Question asked in CLAT PG 2021 – See ques 37 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 2 – It is a cardinal principle of the law of contract that the offer and acceptance of an offer must be absolute and unqualified. It is provided under which section of Indian Contract Act?

1. Section 6
2. Section 7
3. Section 7 (1)
4. Section 7 (2)

Ans – 3

(Similar Question asked – See ques 113 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 3 – In which case it has been held that acceptance of the offer must be absolute and unqualified and it cannot be conditional?

1. Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui and Ors.
2. Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram
3. Jawahar Lal Burman v. Union of India
4. All of the above

Ans – 4

Question 4 – An acceptance with a variation is no acceptance. It is in effect and substance a

1. Cross offer
2. Counter offer
3. Contingent offer
4. Counter Acceptance

Ans – 2

Question 5 – In which case it has been held that mere mental determination or mere silence is no acceptance?

1. Felthouse v Bindley
2. Harvey v. Facey
3. Tinn v. Hoffman
4. Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball company

Ans – 1

Question 6 – Consider the following statements. Which is correct?

1. Acceptance must be expressed in some reasonable manner unless the proposer prescribes a manner in which it has to be accepted.
2. If the acceptance is given in a manner not prescribed by the proposer and the proposer does not raise any objection to it, within a reasonable time, then it amounts to acceptance.
3. If the acceptance is given in a manner not prescribed by the proposer and the proposer does not raise any objection to it, within a reasonable time, it does not amount to acceptance.
4. but still the acceptor fails to follow it, then it results into a concluded contract.
5. If the acceptance is given in a manner not prescribed by the proposer and the proposer raises an objection to it and the acceptor follows the same, it results into a concluded contract.

1. 1, 2, 4
2. 2, 3, 5
3. 1, 2, 5
4. 2, 4, 5

Ans – 3

Question 7 – What is the usual mode of acceptance in case of general offer?

1. It has to be specifically communicated
2. Performance of the conditions of the offer
3. It has to be specifically communicated and performance of the conditions
4. Any one of the above

Ans – 2

Question 8 – The communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer

1. When it is put in course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor.
2. When it comes to the knowledge of the proposer
3. When it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made
4. None of the above

Ans – 1

Question 9 – The communication of an acceptance is complete as against the acceptor

1. When it is put in course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor.
2. When it comes to the knowledge of the proposer
3. When it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made
4. None of the above

Ans – 2

Question 10 – Can acceptance be revoked?

1. An acceptance can never be revoked in case of English law while in Indian law it can be revoked
2. An acceptance can never be revoked in case of Indian law while in English law it can be revoked
3. Both in Indian and English law acceptance can be revoked
4. Both in Indian and English law acceptance cannot be revoked

Ans – 1

Part III of our Constitution does not explicitly include persons with disabilities within its protective fold. However, much like their able-bodied counterparts, the golden triangle of Articles 14, 19 and 21 applies with full force and vigour to the disabled. The RPwD Act seeks to operationalize and give concrete shape to the promise of full and equal citizenship held out by the Constitution to the disabled and to execute its ethos of inclusion and acceptance.

There is a critical qualitative difference between the barriers faced by persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups. In order to enable persons with disabilities to lead a life of equal dignity and worth, it is not enough to mandate that discrimination against them is impermissible. That is necessary, but not sufficient. We must equally ensure, as a society, that we provide them the additional support and facilities that are necessary for them to offset the impact of their disability. This Court in its judgment in (1), noted that a key component of equality is the principle of reasonable differentiation and specific measures must be undertaken, recognizing the different needs of persons with disabilities, to pave the way for substantive equality. Justice A K Sikri stated in the above judgement: “In international human rights law, equality is founded upon two complementary principles: non-discrimination and reasonable differentiation. The principle of non-discrimination seeks to ensure that all persons can equally enjoy and exercise all their rights and freedoms. Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal participation. For example, when public facilities and services are set on standards out of the reach of persons with disabilities, it leads to exclusion and denial of rights. Equality not only implies preventing discrimination (example, the protection of individuals against unfavourable treatment by introducing anti-discrimination laws), but goes beyond in remedying discrimination against groups suffering systematic discrimination in society. In concrete terms, it means embracing the notion of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable accommodation”.

As the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities noted in General Comment 6, reasonable accommodation is a component of the principle of inclusive equality. It is a (2) facilitator. The establishment of this linkage between reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination thus creates an obligation of immediate effect. Under this rights-based and disabled centric conceptualization of reasonable accommodation, a failure to provide reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination. Reasonable accommodation determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with the disabled person concerned. Instead of making assumptions about how the relevant barriers can be tackled, the principle of reasonable accommodation requires dialogue with the individual concerned to determine how to tackle the barrier.

(Excerpted from the judgement of Vikash Kumar v UPSC, delivered by DY Chandrachud, J., Indira Banerjee, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.)

Question 11 – What is the difference between benchmark disability (section 2 (r)) and person with disability (section 2 (s)) as provided in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. (Present act)?

1. A ‘benchmark disability’ is when a person has ‘not less than 40%’ of a specified disability while in case of ‘person with disability’ there is no requirement of proving a certain percentage of disability. So ‘person with disability’ is broader than the definition of ‘benchmark disability’.
2. A ‘person with disability’ is when a person has ‘not less than 40%’ of a specified disability while in case of ‘benchmark disability’ there is no requirement of proving a certain percentage of disability. So ‘benchmark disability’ is broader than the definition of ‘person with disability’.
3. A ‘benchmark disability’ is when a person has ‘not less than 50%’ of a specified disability while in case of ‘person with disability’ there is no requirement of proving a certain percentage of disability. So ‘person with disability’ is broader than the definition of ‘benchmark disability’.
4. The Act does not take into account the ‘persons having disability’ while for persons having benchmark disability special provisions are provided in the Act.

Ans – 1

(Similar question asked – see question 102 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 12 – Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 was repealed by?

1. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2014
2. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2015
3. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
4. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2017

Ans – 3

Question 13 – What shift has been advocated between the Act of 1995 and present Act (as mentioned above)?

1. A shift from a medical model of disability to a social model of disability.
2. A shift from a social model of disability to a medical model of disability
3. A shift from medical model of disability to equally participative model.
4. None of the above

Ans – 1

Question 14 – Which principle has been widely discussed by the Judges in the present case?

1. Principle of substantive accommodation
2. Principle of formal concept of equality
3. Principle of reasonable accommodation
4. Principle of dimensional equality

Ans – 3

Question 15 – The judgement mentions about “golden triangle of Article 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution”. Identify the case related to Golden triangle.

1. AK Gopalan v State of Madras
2. Maneka Gandhi v UOI
3. KS Puttaswamy v UOI
4. Common Cause v UOI

Ans – 2

Question 16 – Replace (1) in the judgement

1. Binoy Viswam v UOI
2. Parmanand Katara v UOI
3. Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India
4. Arjun Gopal v UOI

Ans – 3

Explanation – Facts of Jeeja ghosh v UOI – Right to human dignity. Compensation was granted to a person who had a valid ticket but was deplaned by the airline because of his disability – cerebral palsy.

(Similar question asked – See question 99 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 17 – Replace (2) in the passage

1. formal equality
2. substantive equality
3. direct discrimination
4. indirect discrimination

Ans – 2

Question 18 – Consider the following statement. Which is correct?

1. Reasonable accommodation is a facilitator of substantive equality
2. Reasonable accommodation is a facet of formal equality
3. Reasonable accommodation is not a part of equality.
4. Reasonable accommodation further leads to indirect discrimination

Ans -1

Question 19 – Identify the situations of reasonable accommodation

1. Provision of scribes and compensatory time during the examination to disabled candidates
2. Providing screen magnification software or a screen reader [which can speak out the content on a computer screen in a mechanical voice] to a visually impaired person
3. A wheel-chaired person working in an office not consisting of lift and only stairs.
4. Providing speech-to-text converters, access to sign language interpreters, sound amplification systems, rooms in which echo is eliminated and lip-reading is possible to a hearing-impaired person.
5. Giving equal time to all the candidates to write the exam including a candidate having writer’s cramp problem.

1. 3, 5
2. 2, 3, 5
3. 1, 2, 4
4. 4, 5

Ans – 3

Question 20 – The principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. Which author has talked about the participative dimension of equality while giving the 4 dimensions of equality?

1. Sandra Fredmen
2. Anatole France
3. Justice Ruth
4. All of the above

Ans – 1

This Court, vide Order dated 03.04.2018 in SLP (Crl) No. 2302 of 2017, reported as (1) directed that a Central Oversight Body (hereinafter referred to as the “COB”) be set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to the use of videography in the crime scene during the investigation.

This Court, vide Order dated 16.09.2020, impleaded all the States and Union Territories to find out the exact position of CCTV cameras qua each Police Station as well as the constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with the Order dated 03.04.2018 of this Court in (1)

This Court, while considering the directions issued in (2) held that there was a need for further directions that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observations thereon. The COB was further directed to issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest.

Since these directions are in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and since nothing substantial has been done in this regard for a period of over 2½ years since our first Order dated 03.04.2018, the Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this Order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible. Affidavits will be filed by the Principal Secretary/Cabinet Secretary/Home Secretary of each State/ Union Territory giving this Court a firm action plan with exact timelines for compliance with today’s Order. This is to be done within a period of (3) from today.

(Excerpted from the Judgement delivered by Justice R.F Nariman, justice KM Joseph, and Justice Aniruddha Bose, 2020)

Question 21 – Replace (1) and (2) in the passage above.

1. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration
2. D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal
3. Parambir Singh Saini v. Baljit singh, Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
4. Parambir Singh Saini v. Baljit singh, D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal

Ans – 2

Question 22 – The passage has been taken from which case?

1. Parambir singh Saini v Baljit singh
2. Shafin Jahan v state of Himachal Pradesh
3. DK Basu v State of West Bengal
4. Sunil Batra v Delhi administration

ANS – 1

Question 23 – Replace (3) in the passage above

1. 6 weeks
2. 8 weeks
3. 6 months
4. 1 year

Ans – 1

Question 24 – Which section of CRPC states that “the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.”?

1. 161 (1)
2. 161 (2)
3. 161 (3)
4. 161 (4)

Ans – 3

Question 25 – Consider the following statement. Which is correct?

1. The United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, came into force on June 26, 1987
2. United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, June 24, 1985
3. India signed and ratified the convention on October 14, 1997
4. India signed the convention on October 14, 1997 but has not ratified the convention yet.
5. India has also filed reservations against Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Convention, thus essentially rejecting a basic level of international scrutiny envisaged by the Convention.

1. 2, 4, 5
2. 1, 4, 5
3. 2, 3, 5
4. 1, 3, 5

Ans – 2

(Similar question asked in CLAT PG 2021 – See question 67)

Question 26 – Match the following section of IPC

1. Section 330                           1. Custodial Rape
2. Section 331                           2. Wrongful confinement to extort confession
3. Section 348                           3. Voluntary causing hurt to extort confession
4. Section 376 (2)                     4. Voluntary causing grievous hurt to extort confession

1. A-3, B-4, C-1, D-2
2. A-3, B-4, C-2, D-4
3. A-1, B-2, C-3, D-4
4. A-4, B-2, C-3, D-4

Ans – 2

Question 27 – Recently, in which case, in February 2021, the SC affirmed the conviction of two police officers who were found to have mercilessly beaten a man leading to his eventual death back in 1985?

1. Pravat Chandra Mohanty and anr v. State of Odisha
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak
3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh
4. Bikramjit v state of Odisha

Ans – 1

Question 28 – In which case Apex Court ruled that no one can be arrested on the basis of a mere allegation as mandated by the constitutional rights of a person, unless reasonable satisfaction is reached after proper investigation?

1. Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration
2. DK Basu v State of West Bengal
3. Joginder Kumar v state of UP
4. Nilabeti Behera v state of Orissa

Ans – 3

Question 29 – In which case the SC laid down several guidelines for the police while making an arrest and at the time of detention, after several instances of police violence and misuse of power came to light?

1. Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration
2. DK Basu v State of West Bengal
3. Joginder Kumar v state of UP
4. Nilabeti Behera v state of Orissa

Ans – 2

Question 30 – Which Law commission report deals with “Implementation of United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment” through Legislation?

1. 272^nd report
2. 273^rd report
3. 274^th report
4. 275^th report

Ans – 2

Environmental protection refers to any measure that is taken to conserve, maintain or preserve the state of the environment. Protection of the environment can be done through reducing pollutants or anything that leads to its degradation. Preserving is also used hand in hand with the term conserving. Environmental preservation refers practices that do not alter the environment. It aims at keeping the environment unchanged so as to leave it intact. Protection of the environment can also mean that the environmental practices that the human race indulge in are sustainable to help avoid damaging or harming the ecosystem.

The animals are also part of the environment and when we talk about protection, animals are a key factor. For animals, it is more about conservation. It has to do with protecting the endangered species from extinction by discouraging activities such as poaching.

When the environment is protected it serves to benefit all those who rely on it. It serves in the maintenance of life for the plants, humans and animals. Conservation of the environment aims at keeping it safe and healthy. It aims at the reduction of overusing the natural resources. It is the taking care of all the components that make up the environment.

Question 31 – Arrange the various environment protection act with respect to the year they were enacted starting with the earliest first. (Ascending order)

1. The environment protection act 1986
2. The Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act 1981
3. Forest conservation act 1980
4. Wildlife protection act,1972
5. The water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act 1974

1. 3-4-2-1-5
2. 4-5-3-2-1
3. 5-4-3-2-1
4. 1-2-3-5-4

Ans – 2

Question 32 – The Environment Protection Act, 1986, is enacted under ____________of the Constitution of India to implement the decisions made at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment held at Stockholm, 1972.

1. Article 251
2. Article 253
3. Article 254
4. Article 255

Ans – 2

Question 33 – Match the following

1. Precautionary Principle
2. Polluter Pays Principle
3. Public trust doctrine
4. Sustainable development

1. A.P. Pollution Control Board v Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718
2. Indian council for enviro – legal action v. union of India 1996 (Bichrri case)
3. M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (SPAN MOTEL CASE)
4. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715 (the Vellore case)

1. A-1, B-2, C-3, D-4
2. A-2, B-1, C-3, D-4
3. A-4, B-3, C-1, D-2
4. A-3, B-2, C-1, D-4

ANS – 1

(Similar Question was asked – See question 92)

Question 34 – The maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum laedas means

1. Use your property for the good of others
2. Enjoy the environment using sustainable development principle
3. Enjoy your own property without injuring your neighbour.
4. One should not hurt anyone by words

Ans – 3

Question 35 – Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration

1. requires the States to co-operate to develop international standards regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other ecological damage
2. opens the doors for further developments in the area of legal control of acid rain, greenhouse effect and ozone depletion.
3. confers responsibility on States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control do not cause damage to environment of other States.
4. All of the above

Ans – 3

Question 36 – The Stockholm declaration was held in

1. Austria from 10th June to 16th June, 1972
2. Sweden, 5th June to 16th June, 1972
3. Russia, 5th July to 16th July, 1972
4. Hague, 15th June to 26th June, 1972

Ans – 2

Question 37 – ____________to the Vienna Convention which set firm targets for reducing consumption and production of a range of ozone-depleting substances like CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons).

1. World charter for nature
2. Montreal Protocol
3. Kuala lumpur conference
4. None

Ans -2

Question 38 – The Bio Conference (Earth Summit) was held at

1. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, June 3 – 12, 1992
2. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, June 10 – 16, 1992
3. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, July 3 – 12, 1992
4. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, July 10 – 16, 1992

Ans – 1

Question 39 – The Rio Declaration Environment and Development or Rio Principles has 27 principles. Which principle talks about Precautionary principle and polluter pay principle?

1. Principle 7 and 8
2. Principle 20 and 24
3. Principle 12 and 13
4. Principle 15 and 16

Ans – 4

Question 40 – Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to mean their own needs. The definition is given by

1. WCED Report, 1987 (The World Commission on Environment and Development
2. UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
3. Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002
4. All of the above

Ans – 1

On February 25, the Westminster Magistrate’s Court in London accepted the contention of the Indian government to extradite Nirav Modi, who duped (1) of billions of rupees and fled the country when he found the noose around him tightening, saying that the evidence against him “is prima facie sufficient to order his extradition to India to face the charges”.

Delivering the verdict, Judge Sam Goozee said: “India is governed by it(s) written Constitution which has at its core the fundamental principle of the independence of the judiciary by virtue of the separation of powers between judiciary, the executive and the legislature. There is no cogent or reliable evidence that the judiciary in India are no longer independent, or capable of managing a fair trial even where it is a high-profile fraud with significant media interest. (sic)”

The verdict assumes great significance because it not only ensures that Nirav Modi will be brought back to face charges but also serves as a reminder to all fugitives, their protectors and those trying to defraud India that they can no longer just take a flight out of the country after duping Indian institutions and people hoping to find safe havens abroad. The law will catch up with them. This is a unique case where the government has succeeded in its attempt to extradite a fugitive hiding on foreign soil.

Allowing the extradition plea of the Indian government, Judge Goozee said: “Pulling all these findings together, I determine, on one possible view of the evidence, I am satisfied that there is evidence upon which Nirav Modi could be convicted in relation to the conspiracy to defraud the (1). A prima facie case is established.”

(Question from Extradition came in CLAT PG 2021)

Question 41 – Replace (1) with name of the Bank duped by Nirav Modi.

1. State bank of India
2. Punjab National Bank
3. Central Bank of India
4. HDFC bank

Question 42 – What judgement did the UK’s Westminster Magistrate’s Court passed?

1. Denial of extradition of Nirav Modi
2. In favour of extradition of Nirav Modi
3. The orders are yet to be passed by the Magistrate Court
4. The matter is still pending in the Magistrate’s Court

Ans – 2

Question 43 – What is the Meaning of Extradition?

1. Extradition is a process whereby competent state authorities order a person to leave a country and prevent him from returning to the same territory.
2. It is a refuge granted to offenders by a state within the precincts of its embassies or legations abroad.
3. Extradition and deportation are one and the same thing.
4. Extradition is the formal process whereby a fugitive offender is surrendered to the state in which an offence was allegedly committed in order to stand trial to serve a sentence of imprisonment.

Ans – 4

Question 44 – Identify the maxim on which extradition is based.

1. Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem – Allow the country in which crime has been committed to punish the offender
2. Aut punire aut dedere – it means states must either surrender a criminal within their jurisdiction to a state that wishes to prosecute criminal or prosecute the offender in its own court.
3. Assentio mentium – Both the countries should assent for extradition to impose rule of law which demands an offender to be punished.
4. Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium – In the interest of the state, extradition should be allowed.

Ans – 2

Question 45 – Consider the following statement.

1. The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state because one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its border.
2. In view of the principle of “territoriality of criminal law”, states do not apply their penal laws to acts committed outside their boundaries except in the protection of special national interests.
3. Generally, extradition is granted for serious crimes.
4. Normally extradition takes place in accordance with bilateral treaties or multilateral conventions but in case there is no extradition treaty it can still be done on the concept of reciprocity, comity, goodwill, or municipal codes of penal procedure of a particular country.
5. In absence of bilateral treaties on extradition it cannot be allowed.

1. 1, 2, 3, 5
2. 1, 2, 3
3. 1, 2, 3, 4
4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Ans – 3

Question 46 – The first Act providing for extradition was adopted in

1. 1833 by Belgium
2. 1833 by USA
3. 1833 by UK
4. 1834 by Sweden

Ans – 1

Question 47 – What is the meaning of “rule of double criminality”?

1. Crime for which extradition is sought should be punishable both under the laws of requesting and requested state
2. Crime for which extradition is sought is punishable only under the requesting state.
3. Crime for which extradition is sought is punishable only under the requested state.
4. None of the above

Ans – 1

Question 48 – What the principle of specificity/speciality of the crime means?

1. The demanding state can prosecute the extradite for any offence after extradition
2. The demanding state can prosecute the extradite for any offence after extradition, and after taking approval from the highest court of that country.
3. The demanding state can prosecute the extradite for any offence after extradition and after taking approval from the Country which has extradited the person.
4. The demanding state can prosecute the extradite only for the offence for which the extradition was granted.

Ans – 4

Question 49 – The extradition treaty between India and UK dates back to

1. 1990
2. 1991
3. 1992
4. 1993

Ans – 3

Question 50 – Which Indian Judge challenged the Extradition request of Indian government claiming that there are chances of fair trial rights being denied to the fugitive diamond merchant on account of lack of judicial independence?However, his opinion was rejected by the UK court

1. Justice Deepak Mishra
2. Justice Markandey Katju
3. Justice Arun Mishra
4. Justice AM Khanwilkar

Ans – 2

In conclusion, we hold that the cause brought before this Court by the protagonists in larger public interest, deserves acceptance so as to uphold the constitutional rights of public and the litigants, in particular. In recognizing that court proceedings ought to be live streamed, this Court is mindful of and has strived to balance the various interests regarding administration of justice, including open justice, dignity and privacy of the participants to the proceedings and the majesty and decorum of the Courts.

As a result, we allow these writ petitions and interventionists‟ applications with the aforementioned observations and hope that the relevant rules will be formulated expeditiously and the first phase project executed in right earnest by all concerned. Ordered accordingly.

(Excerpted from the judgement of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, 2018 delivered by CJI Dipak Mishra, AM Khanwilkar J., and Chandrachud J.)

Question 51 – Which advocate in the year 2018 approached the Apex Court demanding live streaming and video recording of cases of national importance?

1. Menaka Guruswamy
2. Indira Banerjee
3. Prashant Bhusan
4. Arvind Datar

Ans – 2

Question 52 – The right to know and receive information is a facet of

1. Article 19 (1) (a)
2. Article 19 (1) (b)
3. Article 21
4. Article 14

Ans – 1

Question 53 – In which of the following case the constitution bench by 4:1 majority held that review petitions relating to capital punishment shall be heard in open court?

1. Manoj Narula v UOI
2. Mohammad Arif v Registrar, SC
3. Nalini v UOI
4. Ashwani kumar v UOI

ANS – 2

Question 54 – Who is the present chairman of the E-Committee of the Supreme Court of India?

1. Dr. Justice A.R. Lakshmana
2. Justice R.C. Chavan
3. Chief Justice of India NV Ramanan
4. Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Ans – 4

Question 55 – In his separate judgment in the case referred to in the previous question, to which Article of the Constitution of India did Chandrachud, J., refer in support of the proposition that the concept of open courts is not alien to the Indian legal system?

1. Article 365
2. Article 32
3. Article 226
4. Article 145(4)

Ans – 4

Question 56 – Which section of CRPC and CPC deals with open court?

1. Section 326 and 153 respectively
2. Section 326 and 153-A respectively
3. Section 327 and 153-B respectively
4. Section 327 and 153-C respectively

Ans – 3

(Same question asked – See question 53 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 57 – Who propounded the idea of open justice stating that: “the doors of all public establishments ought to be, thrown wide open to the body of the curious at large- the great open committee of the tribunal of the world.”?

1. Salmond
2. Holland
3. Bentham
4. Rosco Pound

Ans – 3

Question 58 – Who said “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”?

1. Justice Hewart
2. Lord Judge
3. Lord Coleridge
4. Justice Cordazo

Ans – 1

Question 59 – In the above case the judges agreed for Live proceedings of

1. All matters
2. Only matters of constitutional and national importance
3. Sensitive matters like matrimonial or sexual assault cases or POCSO cases
4. 2 and 3 only

Ans – 2

Question 60 – Which is the first High Court in India to begin Live streaming of court proceedings on YouTube?

1. Madhya Pradesh HC
2. Madras HC
3. Gujrat HC
4. Andhra Pradesh HC

Ans – 3

The issue arose in view of the conflicting views expressed by two earlier decisions. In Prakash v. Phulavati, it was held that the rights under the substituted section 6 accrue to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9.9.2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born. In Danamma, though the father died before the Amendment Act, 2005 came into force, leaving behind two daughters, son and a widow, it was held that the daughter would get the equal share.

Disagreeing with the observation in Prakash vs. Phulavati, the bench observed that it is not necessary that the father of the daughter should be living as on the date of the amendment for the latter to claim the benefit of the 2005 amendment. It reasoned this holding by making the following observations.

Coparcener right is by birth. Thus, it is not at all necessary that the father of the daughter should be living as on the date of the amendment, as she has not been conferred the rights of a coparcener by obstructed heritage. According to the Mitakshara coparcenary Hindu law, as administered which is recognised in section 6(1), it is not necessary that there should be a living, coparcener or father as on the date of the amendment to whom the daughter would succeed. The daughter would step into the coparcenary as that of a son by taking birth before or after the Act. However, daughters born before can claim these rights only with effect from the date of the amendment, i.e., 9.9.2005 with saving of past transactions as provided in the proviso to section 6(1) read with section 6(5).

(Excerpted from the judgement of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, 2020)

Question 61 – The concept of notional partition as provided by Proviso to section 6 of Hindu Succession Act

1. is merely a fiction of partition that is created in order to ascertain the share of the surviving Class I female heirs or male relatives of the female heirs of the deceased coparcener.
2. The purpose behind the statutory fiction is “not to bring about the real partition”.
3. Notional Partition can be of 2 types i.e broad and narrow interpretation and in Vineeta Sharma case the Court relied on the narrow interpretation to notional partition.
4. All of the above

Ans – 4

(Similar Question asked – See question 33 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 62 – Which section of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as amended by the 2005 amendment makes daughter by birth a coparcener “in her own right” and “in the same manner as the son?

1. Section 6 (1) (a)
2. Section 6 (1) (b)
3. Section 6 (1) (c)
4. Section 6, explanation

Ans – 1

Question 63 – According to section 6 (3) “where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve

1. By survivorship
2. Testamentary succession
3. Intestate succession
4. Either 2 or 3 as the case may be

Ans – 4

Question 64 – In which case it was held that “the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9-9-2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born. It was held that, there is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect”?

1. Danamma @ sumun surpur vs. amar 2018
2. Isha tyagi v state of UP 2014
3. Prakash v Phulavati 2015
4. None of the above

Ans – 3

Question 65 – The expression used in Explanation to Section 6 (5) ‘partition effected by a decree of a court’ mean

1. Final effect to actual partition by passing the final decree
2. A preliminary decree
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Either 1 or 2

Ans – 1

Question 66 – What did the Court held in the present case?

1. The court held that daughter gets a right through obstructed heritage depending upon owner’s death.
2. The court held that it is not at all necessary that the father of the daughter should be living as on the date of the amendment. (Amendment) Act, 2005.
3. The women have been conferred the rights of a coparcener by unobstructed heritage.
4. Conferral is not based on the death of a father or other coparcener and did not agree with the concept of ‘living coparcener’.

1. Only 1
2. 1 and 2
3. 1,2,3
4. 2,3,4

Ans – 4

(Similar question asked – see question 35 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 67 – The court in this case held that the 2005 amendment act neither has prospective nor retrospective application but retroactive application. What is the meaning of retroactive application?

1. It operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights
2. It operates backward and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws
3. It operates in futuro. Its operation is based upon the character or status that arose earlier
4. Its operation is based on the characteristic or event which happened in   the   past   or requisites   which   had   been   drawn   from   antecedent events.
5. Both 4 and 5

Answer – 5

Question 68 – What does unobstructed heritage/apratibandha daya means?

1. Property, the right to which accrues by death of the last owner.
2. Property, the right to which accrues by birth.
3. Property, the right to which accrues when a person is of 18 years
4. Property to which there is a check

Ans -2

Question 69 – Mangammal vs. TB Raju (2018) followed the principle of which case?

1. Danamma @ sumun surpur vs. amar 2018
2. Isha tyagi v state of UP 2014
3. Prakash v Phulavati 2015
4. Ruchika tomar v State of Uttarakhand 2019

Ans – 3

Question 70 – Can an adopted person become a coparcener?

1. Yes
2. No

Ans – 1

In Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India and Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission this Court recognized reasonable accommodation as a substantive equality facilitator. The jurisprudence relating to indirect discrimination in India is still at a nascent stage. Having said that, indirect discrimination has found its place in the jurisprudence of this Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, where one of us (Chandrachud J), in holding Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional insofar as it decriminalizes homosexual intercourse amongst consenting adults, drew on the doctrine of (1)

This was in arriving at the conclusion that this facially neutral provision disproportionately affected members of the LGBT community. This reliance was in affirmation of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi which had relied on the (6) in recognizing that indirect discrimination occurs “when a provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a status or a characteristic associated with one or more prohibited grounds at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.”

Question 71 – In which case the SC held Indian Army’s policy of denying women officers a permanent commission [“PC”] was discriminatory.?

1. Union of India vs Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja
2. Lt. Col. Reena Gairola v. Union of India
3. Major Nilam Gorwade v. Union of India
4. Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya

Ans – 4

(Same question asked – see question 13 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 72 – Replace (1) in the passage above

1. symmetrical concept of equality
2. indirect discrimination
3. direct discrimination
4. formal concept of equality.

Ans – 2

Question 73 – What is the main difference between direct and indirect discrimination according to the UK model?

1. The main difference between them is that indirect discrimination cannot be justified. Direct discrimination can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
2. The main difference between them is that direct discrimination cannot be justified. Indirect discrimination can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
3. There is no difference between them and they can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim.
4. None of the above

Ans – 2

Question 74 – In which case the Canadian Court outlined a 2-step test for conducting an indirect discrimination enquiry?

1. Ontario Human Rights commission v Stimpson sears
2. Fraser v Canada (attorney general)
3. City council of Pretoria v. walker
4. None of the above

Ans – 2

Question 75 – In which case it was stated that “de minimis rationale is not a permissible exception to invasion of fundamental rights. The Court, speaking through one of us (Chandrachud, J.) had held that “the de minimis hypothesis is misplaced because the invasion of a fundamental right is not rendered tolerable when a few, as opposed to a large number of persons, are subjected to hostile treatment. “Similarly, the percentage of women who have suffered as a consequence of the belated application of rigorous medical criteria is irrelevant to the determination of whether it is a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution”?

1. Anuradha bhasin v UOI
2. Navtej johar v UOI
3. KS puttaswamy v UOI
4. Common cause v UOI

Ans – 3

The schism between Hadiya and her father may be unfortunate. But it was no part of the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide what it considered to be a ‘just’ way of life or ‘correct’ course of living for Hadiya. She has absolute autonomy over her person. Hadiya appeared before the High Court and stated that she was not under illegal confinement. There was no warrant for the High Court to proceed further in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. The purpose of the habeas corpus petition ended. It had to be closed as the earlier Bench had done. The High Court has entered into a domain which is alien to its jurisdiction in a habeas corpus petition. The High Court did not take kindly to the conduct of Hadiya, noting that when it had adjourned the proceedings to issue directions to enable her to pursue her studies, it was at that stage that she appeared with Shafin Jahan only to inform the court of their marriage. How Hadiya chooses to lead her life is entirely a matter of her choice. The High Court’s view of her lack of candour with the court has no bearing on the legality of her marriage or her right to decide for herself, whom she desires to live with or marry.

Excerpted from the judgement given by Justice Dipak Mishara, Justice AM Khanwilkar, and Justice Chandrachud in the case of Shafin Jahan v Ashokan KM)

Question 76 – The SC set aside the judgement of which High court in the above case?

1. Allahabad HC
2. Madras HC
3. Kerela HC
4. Ranchi HC

ANS – 3

Question 77 – The Judges discussed about “parens patriae” doctrine. What does it mean?

1. Parens patriae means that the SC has to rule down the incorrect decision of lower courts.
2. The courts can in every, and any case invoke the Parens Patriae doctrine.
3. It means Parent of the nation, and it should be invoked in exceptional situations
4. All of the above

Ans – 3

Question 78 – The parens patriae has its origin in

1. UK
2. US
3. Australia
4. Canada

Ans – 1

Question 79 – Identify the conditions for valid Muslim marriage

1. Both the individual must profess Islam
2. Both should be of the age of puberty
3. There has to an offer and acceptance
4. One witness has to be present
5. Dower and Mehar
6. Absence of prohibited degree of relationship
7. Two witnesses have to be present

1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
3. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

Ans – 3

Question 80 – Consider the following statement. Which is correct?

1. The superior courts, when they exercise their jurisdiction parens patriae do so in the case of persons who are incapable of asserting a free will such as minors or persons of unsound mind.
2. The doctrine of parens patriae can transgress into the area of determining the suitability of partners to a marital tie.
3. The doctrine of parens patriae can be used by the Court whenever they feel like as courts are the protector of rights
4. The intimacies of marriage do not lie within the within the core zone of privacy.

Ans -1

(Question from parens pariae jurisdiction was there. See question 83 of CLAT PG 2021)

Question 81 – Which article of UDHR underscores the fundamental importance of marriage as an incident of human liberty?

1. Article 12
2. Article 14
3. Article 16
4. Article 17

Ans – 3

OUR MOCK’S REVIEWS