Law MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Law - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is 'Right to information'

Key Points

• Right to information under Article 19(1)(a):
  • In Bennette Coleman v. Union of India (AIR 1973 SC 60), the Supreme Court of India interpreted the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) to include the right to information.
  • The Court held that the freedom of the press is essential for the proper functioning of democracy, as it enables citizens to access information and participate in public discourse.
  • The right to information empowers individuals to seek, receive, and impart information, which is a fundamental aspect of the freedom of speech and expression.
  • Through this landmark judgment, the Court emphasized that restrictions on access to information infringe upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

Additional Information

• Option 1 - Right to assemble peacefully:
  • The right to assemble peacefully is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, not Article 19(1)(a).
  • While it is a fundamental right, it pertains to public gatherings and protests, rather than the freedom of speech and expression.
• Option 3 - Right to property:
  • The right to property was originally a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f), but it was removed by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 and is now a constitutional right under Article 300A.
  • It is unrelated to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Option 4 - Right to education:
  • The right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21A, not Article 19(1)(a).
  • It guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6 to 14 years but does not pertain to the freedom of speech and expression.

The correct answer is 'Expanded the scope of Article 19(1)(a) to cover access to information'

Key Points

• The Bennette Coleman Case:
  • The Bennette Coleman case, also known as the Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973), is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law.
  • The case dealt with the government imposing restrictions on the import of newsprint, which directly affected the newspaper industry, including Bennett Coleman & Co., the publisher of The Times of India.
  • The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution includes not only the right to express opinions but also the right to access information.
  • This expanded the scope of Article 19(1)(a), recognizing that restricting access to information indirectly curtails freedom of speech and expression.
• Significance of the Judgment:
  • The judgment emphasized that freedom of the press is a fundamental right derived from the right to freedom of speech and expression.
  • It established that imposing excessive restrictions on newsprint indirectly limits the dissemination of information, which is vital to maintaining democratic accountability.
  • The case reinforced the idea that freedom of speech is not just about the ability to speak but also about ensuring citizens have access to diverse sources of information.

Additional Information

• Why Other Options Are Incorrect:
  • Option 1 - Limited freedom of speech to non-political subjects: The Bennette Coleman case did not limit freedom of speech; rather, it expanded its scope to include access to information. The judgment was aimed at protecting press freedom, which inherently includes political speech.
  • Option 3 - Overruled previous judgments on freedom of speech: The case did not overrule any major previous judgment on freedom of speech. Instead, it built upon the existing interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) to clarify its scope.
  • Option 4 - Restricted media reporting rights: On the contrary, the judgment upheld and strengthened the rights of the media by invalidating government restrictions on newsprint, which were seen as an indirect way to control the press.
• Broader Implications of the Case:
  • The case set a strong precedent for protecting press freedom against indirect government controls.
  • It highlighted the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding democratic principles, particularly the right to free speech and access to information.

The correct answer is ‘30 days’.

Key Points

• Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005:
  • The RTI Act was enacted in India to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities.
  • Under this Act, any citizen can request information from a public authority, which is obliged to reply expeditiously.
• Maximum Time Limit for Providing Information:
  • The Public Information Officer (PIO) must provide the requested information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application.
  • If the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, the PIO must provide it within 48 hours.
• Failure to Provide Information:
  • If the PIO fails to provide the requested information within the stipulated time, it is considered a deemed refusal, and the applicant can file an appeal.

Additional Information

• Incorrect Options:
  • 7 days: This is incorrect, as the RTI Act does not specify 7 days as the time limit for providing information.
  • 15 days: This is incorrect, as the RTI Act stipulates 30 days as the standard time frame, except in cases involving the life or liberty of a person.
  • 60 days: This is incorrect, as 60 days exceeds the time allowed under the RTI Act. However, additional time may be allowed in special cases for third-party information or appeals.
• Appeals and Penalties:
  • If the PIO fails to comply with the time limits or provides incorrect/incomplete information, the applicant can file a first appeal with the Appellate Authority within 30 days.
  • A second appeal can be filed with the Information Commission if the applicant is not satisfied with the first appeal decision.
  • The PIO may face penalties, including a fine of ₹250 per day of delay, up to a maximum of ₹25,000.

The correct answer is 'Year 2005'

Key Points

• Right to Information Act, 2005:
  • The Right to Information Act (RTI) was enacted by the Indian Parliament in 2005.
  • It came into full force on October 12, 2005, and it empowers Indian citizens to request information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the government.
  • The Act mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information, making it a key tool for combating corruption and ensuring good governance.
  • Under this Act, public authorities are required to computerize their records for wide dissemination and proactively publish certain categories of information so that citizens need minimal effort to obtain information.
  • The RTI Act also established the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) to address appeals and complaints arising under the Act.

Additional Information

• Option 1: Year 1990:
  • The Right to Information Act was not enacted in 1990. During this period, there was no legislation of this nature, although discussions regarding transparency in governance were gaining momentum globally.
  • This decade saw the beginning of advocacy for citizens' rights to access information, but it did not culminate in legislation until later.
• Option 2: Year 2002:
  • In 2002, the Freedom of Information Act was passed in India, but it failed to achieve the desired impact due to its limited scope and poor implementation.
  • As a result, the RTI Act of 2005 was introduced to replace the Freedom of Information Act, providing a more robust framework for accessing government information.
• Option 4: Year 2009:
  • The RTI Act was already in effect by 2009. However, this year saw increased public awareness and significant usage of the Act by citizens and activists to expose corruption and inefficiencies in the system.
  • No major new enactment related to RTI occurred in 2009, making this option incorrect.

The correct answer is 'Aruna Roy'

Key Points

• Aruna Roy and the RTI Movement:
  • Aruna Roy is a renowned Indian social activist and a key figure behind the initiation of the Right to Information (RTI) movement in Rajasthan, India.
  • She co-founded the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a grassroots organization dedicated to empowering workers and peasants.
  • The RTI movement began as a tool to fight corruption and ensure transparency in governance, particularly in rural areas where citizens faced significant challenges in accessing information related to government schemes and expenditures.
  • MKSS organized public hearings, called "Jan Sunwais," where discrepancies in public spending and accountability were exposed, leading to the demand for a formal RTI law.
  • Her efforts played a pivotal role in the eventual enactment of the national RTI Act in 2005, which provides citizens the right to access information held by public authorities.

Additional Information

• S.P. Sathe:
  • S.P. Sathe was a renowned legal scholar and professor, known for his work in constitutional law and public administration.
  • While he contributed significantly to legal studies and reforms, he was not associated with initiating the RTI movement in Rajasthan.
• Justice Chandrachud:
  • Justice Chandrachud, as a prominent figure in the Indian judiciary, has contributed to landmark judgments and legal principles.
  • However, his contributions do not relate to the inception of the RTI movement in Rajasthan.
• Ram Jawaya:
  • Ram Jawaya is often referenced in the context of the landmark case “Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab” related to the scope of executive power in India.
  • His name is unrelated to the RTI movement or its beginnings in Rajasthan.

The correct answer is War or external aggression.

• According to Article 358, when a Proclamation of National Emergency is made, the six Fundamental Rights under Article 19 are automatically suspended.
• No separate order for their suspension is required.
• The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 358 in two ways.
• Firstly, the six Fundamental Rights under Article 19 can be suspended only when the National Emergency is declared on the ground of war or external aggression and not on the ground of armed rebellion.
• Under Article 359, the President is authorized to suspend, by order, the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency. Thus, remedial measures are suspended and not the Fundamental Rights.

Key Points

• The suspension of enforcement relates to only those Fundamental Rights that are specified in the Presidential Order.
• The suspension could be for the period during the operation of an emergency or for a shorter period.
• The Order should be laid before each House of Parliament for approval. 
• The 44 Amendment Act mandates that the President cannot suspend the right to move the court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21.

The correct answer is Geneva.

Key Points

• The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is established by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Convention, which transforms BIRPI into WIPO.
• The newly founded World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is a member-state-led international organisation with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.
• WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) is one of the United Nations' 15 specialised organisations (UN).
• WIPO was established in 1967 by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Convention to promote and preserve intellectual property (IP) around the world via collaboration with countries and international organisations.
• When the convention went into effect on April 26, 1970, it commenced activities.

Important Points

• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):
  • Formation: 14 July 1967
  • Type: United Nations specialised agency
  • Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
  • Membership: 193 member states
  • Director-General: Daren Tang

The correct answer is Climate change.

• The Kyoto Protocol is related to Climate change.

Key Points

• Kyoto Protocol:
  • It is an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
  • It applies to 6 greenhouse gases i.e. carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride.
  • It was adopted in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997.
  • The protocol came into force in February 2005.
  • Kyoto Protocol is an extension to the 1992 UNFCCC.

Additional Information

The correct answer is Both Supreme Court and High Court.

• The P. I. L. petition related to Fundamental Rights can be filed with both the Supreme Court and High Court.

Additional Information

• History of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India:
  • In 1979, Kapila Hingorani filed a petition and secured the release of almost 40000 undertrials from Patna’s jails in the famous ‘Hussainara Khatoon’ case. Hingorani was a lawyer.
  • This case was filed in the SC before a Bench led by Justice P N Bhagwati.
  • Hingorani is called the ‘Mother of PILs’ as a result of this successful case.
  • The court permitted Hingorani to pursue a case in which she had no personal locus standi making PILs a permanent fixture in Indian jurisprudence.
  • The Supreme Court of India and the High Courts have the right to issue PILs.
  • The concept of PILs stems from the power of judicial review.
  • The concept of PILs has diluted the principle of locus standi, which implies that only the person/party whose rights have been infringed upon can file petitions.
  • Procedure to File PIL in India:
    • Any Indian citizen or organisation can move the court for a public interest/cause by filing a petition:
    • In the SC under Article 32
    • In the High Courts under Article 226
    • The court can treat a letter as a writ petition and take action on it.
    • The court has to be satisfied that the writ petition complies with the following: the letter is addressed by the aggrieved person or a public-spirited individual or a social action group for the enforcement of legal or constitutional rights to any person who, upon poverty or disability, are not able to approach the court for redress.
    • The court can also take action on the basis of newspaper reports if it is satisfied with the case.

The correct answer is Subhash Kumar vs the State of Bihar.

Key Points

• Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right and includes the right to free water and free air from pollution for the full enjoyment of life in the case of Subhash Kumar vs the State of Bihar.
• The Court has stated that Article 21 includes the enjoyment of pollutant-free water and air for full enjoyment of life as far as the release of industrial pollution into rivers is concerned.

 Thus, we can say that the above statements are correct.

The correct answer is France.

• The Indian Preamble borrowed its ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity from the French Constitution.
  • The Indian state came to be recognized as the ‘Republic of India’ in the lineage of the Constitution of France.

Additional Information

• The Constitution of India is the backbone of democracy in our country.
  • It is an umbrella of rights that gives the citizens an assurance of a free and fair society.
  • The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution on 26th November 1949 and it came into effect on 26th of January 1950.
  • The Constitution of 1950 was a by-product of the legacy started by the Government of India Act 1935.
  • This was the longest act passed by the British government with 321 sections and 10 schedules.
  • This act had drawn its content from four sources – Report of the Simon Commission, discussions and deliberations at the Third Round Table Conference, the White Paper of 1933, and the reports of the Joint select committees.

The correct answer is the Right to property

• The right to property ceased to be a fundamental Right via the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
• It was instead made a constitutional right under Article 300A which states - that " No person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law."

Key Points

• The fundamental rights are mentioned in part three of the Indian constitution.
• These rights are enforceable and justifiable.
• The citizen can directly move to the supreme court in case of violation of fundamental rights.
• There are a total of six types of fundamental rights namely -

1. Right to equality
2. Right to freedom
3. Right against exploitation
4. Right to freedom of religion
5. Cultural and educational rights
6. Right to constitutional remedies

• "Right to property" was removed by the 44th constitutional amendment.
• At present, it is inserted in article 300-A of the Indian constitution. 

The correct answer is Golak Nath Vs. The state of Punjab.

Key Points

• Golak Nath Vs. The State of Punjab:
  • Golaknath Vs. the State Of Punjab was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
  • The judgement reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights.
  • The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights.
  • The Supreme Court, by a thin majority of 6:5, held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution was an ordinary 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the Constitution.
  • The majority did not believe there was any difference between the ordinary legislative power of the parliament and the inherent constituent power of parliament to amend the Constitution.
  • The majority did not agree with the view that Article 368 of the Constitution contained "power and procedure" to amend, but instead believed that the text of Article 368 only explained the procedure to amend the constitution, the power being derived from entry 97 of the List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution.

Additional Information

• State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raj Narain:
  • The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain was a 1975 case heard by the Allahabad High Court that found the Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices.
  • Ruling on the case that had been filed by the defeated opposition candidate, Raj Narain, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha invalidated Gandhi's win and barred her from holding elected office for six years.
  • The decision caused a political crisis in India that led to the imposition of a state of emergency by Gandhi's government from 1975 to 1977.
  • Raj Narain had contested the 1971 Indian general election against Indira Gandhi, who represented the constituency of Rae Bareilly in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament.
  • Gandhi was re-elected from Rae Bareilly by a two-to-one margin of the popular vote, and her Indian National Congress (R) party won a sweeping majority in the Indian Parliament.
• Bank Nationalization Case
  • On the 2nd of February, 1970, the landmark judgement, by a majority of 10:1 was delivered by the Supreme Court of India.
  • Except for Justice A.N. Ray, the other Judges gave the following judgement that a shareholder was not entitled to move to the Supreme Court for enforcing the Fundamental Rights in the name of his company, until and unless the action which was being complained of, directly or indirectly violated the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights as well.
  • The Bank Nationalisation case indeed served as a landmark judgement for guiding the Parliament, as well as the Constitutional jurisprudence of the country for years to come.
• Azhar Vs. Municipal Corporation:
  • The case involved the following matters:
  • To fill up eight posts of Assistant Engineers.
  • Quash Office order entrusting Junior Officers with current duty charge of the posts of the Assistant Engineers on current duty charge on their own pay scale.
  • To fill up the remaining posts of Assistant Engineers in the direct recruitment quota.
  • Declare that the petitioners Graduate Junior Engineers in the service are entitled to be put on par with their counterparts in other Government departments.

The correct answer is 1959.

Important Points

• In the year 1959, Dalai Lama crossed over into India and take asylum.
• Tibet increasingly came under Chinese control at the beginning of the 20th century.
• The people of Tibet who practice a unique form of Buddhism suffered under communist China’s anti-religious legislation.
• The current Dalai Lama is the 14th Dalai Lama, he was born in Taktser, China. His full name is Lhamo Thondup.
• Dalai Lama is considered a living buddha and he is the highest spiritual leader of Tibet. He was designated the 14th Dalai Lama in 1940.

Additional Information

• Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in the year 1989. 
• Gedun Drupa who was born in 1391 is considered to be the first Dalai Lama.

The correct answer is Lily Thomas Vs Government of India.

Key Points

• In 2005, Lily Thomas from Lucknow filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court for the purpose of challenging Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act.
• Representation of the People Act protects the convicted politicians against any sort of disqualification from contesting the elections, on the ground of pending appeals against their conviction in the appellate courts.
• The petition filed by the petitioners was rejected at the first attempt eventually after nine years, after constantly making attempts, later in July 2013, the Supreme Court bench which comprised Justices AK Patnaik and SJ Mukhopadhaya, passed a verdict.
• As a final judgement of Lily Thomas Vs Government of India case, Supreme Court has ruled that any Member of Parliament, Legislator or Legislative Council who is found guilty of an offense and has been sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum period of two years, shall lose the membership of the House with immediate effect.
• if the elected representatives were convicted in a criminal case by a trial court and the saving clause under section 8(4) will not be applicable.
• It also allowed convicted members a 3 month time period for appeal against the conviction and sentencing and held that those convicted would suffer immediate disqualification.

Additional Information 

• In Sarla Mudgal Vs Government of India case, the supreme court of India directed the state to enact a uniform civil code counting on the directive principles contained in Part IV, Article 44 of the Constitution.
• In Om Prakash Vs Dil Bahar case, the supreme court of India ruled that a rape accused could now be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim, even if medical evidence did not prove rape.
• In Indra Sawhney Vs Government of India case, the supreme court upheld the principle that the combined reservation beneficiaries should not exceed 50% of India’s population.