Important Judgements

Important Notice for Readers:

Please be aware that the questions provided in this post are based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which, along with two other laws, has recently been replaced by the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and other legislative updates. As a result, some of the legal references and interpretations in these questions may no longer be applicable under the new laws.

For the most current information and to ensure your knowledge is up-to-date, we encourage you to review the latest legal texts and guidelines under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and related new laws. Thank you for your understanding and for staying informed on these important legal changes.

1. In which case did the Supreme Court hold that "anticipatory bail" can be granted even after filing an FIR?

a) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab b) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra c) Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) d) State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi

c) In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail can be granted even after the filing of an FIR, with no fixed time limit on the duration of protection, subject to certain conditions.

2. Which recent judgment of the Supreme Court declared that "indefinite detention" without trial is unconstitutional under Indian law?

a) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras b) Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab c) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra d) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation

d) In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022), the Supreme Court declared that "indefinite detention" without trial is unconstitutional, emphasizing the right to a fair trial and speedy justice under Article 21.

3. Which landmark judgment ruled that Section 497 of the IPC (Adultery) is unconstitutional and violative of the rights to equality and personal liberty?

a) Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India b) Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. c) Joseph Shine v. Union of India d) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

c) In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC, declaring it unconstitutional as it violated the principles of equality and personal liberty.

4. In which case did the Supreme Court uphold the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the IPC, dealing with sedition?

a) Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar b) Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab c) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India d) Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras

a) In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the IPC, but it restricted its application to acts involving violence or incitement to violence.

5. Which Supreme Court judgment recently emphasized the need for social context training for judges in dealing with cases of gender violence?

a) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan b) Nirbhaya Case (Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi) c) Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh d) Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India

c) In Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the Supreme Court highlighted the need for social context training for judges to better handle cases involving gender violence and to avoid gender stereotypes in judgments.

6. Which case is related to the decriminalization of defamation in India, as per the Supreme Court’s judgment?

a) Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India b) Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. Union of India c) Aseem Trivedi v. State of Maharashtra d) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

a) In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal defamation law in Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, stating it is not unconstitutional and that freedom of speech is not absolute.

7. Which Supreme Court case established guidelines for arrest and detention under Section 498A of the IPC (dowry-related violence)?

a) Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh b) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar c) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal d) Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

b) In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for arrest under Section 498A of the IPC to prevent misuse of the law and ensure protection of personal liberty.

8. Which judgment laid down the principles for protecting the identity of rape victims and how media should report such cases?

a) Nirbhaya Case (Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi) b) Sakshi v. Union of India c) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh d) Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India

c) In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of protecting the identity of rape victims in all stages of legal proceedings and in media reporting, to safeguard their dignity and privacy.

9. Which recent case ruled on the protection of free speech on social media platforms?

a) Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India b) Kunal Kamra v. Union of India c) Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India d) Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

c) In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance national security with the protection of free speech and expression on social media platforms.

10. In which judgment did the Supreme Court recognize the need for privacy in conversations over digital platforms under Article 21?

a) Puttaswamy v. Union of India b) WhatsApp Inc. v. Union of India c) Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India d) K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case)

d) In K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), also known as the Aadhaar judgment, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of privacy in the digital age, including conversations over digital platforms, as part of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.

If any answer found wrong, Please comment.

---

© 2025 UnIQ Coaching. All rights reserved.