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provided in this post are based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which, along with two other laws, has recently been replaced by the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and other legislative updates.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 of India rule on the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding consensual homosexual acts?

a) Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India b) Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation c) Joseph Shine v. Union of India d) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

a) In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults by reading down Section 377 of the IPC. This landmark judgment upheld the fundamental rights to privacy and equality.

2. Which judgment clarified the application of the 'right to be forgotten' in India under the Information Technology Act, 2000?

a) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India b) X v. Union of India c) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India d) Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries Ltd.

b) In X v. Union of India (2021), the Delhi High Court dealt with the 'right to be forgotten' under the IT Act, emphasizing the need to balance the right to privacy with the right to freedom of expression and information.

3. In which case did the Supreme Court declare that the personal relationship between live-in partners comes under the purview of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

a) S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal b) Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India c) Shakti Vahini v. Union of India d) Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma

d) In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court held that live-in relationships could fall within the ambit of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, thereby protecting women in such relationships from domestic violence.

4. Which judgment redefined the death penalty jurisprudence in India, particularly focusing on the "rarest of the rare" doctrine?

a) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab b) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab c) Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. d) Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India

c) In Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2017), also known as the Nirbhaya case, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for the accused under the "rarest of the rare" doctrine, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime and its impact on society.

5. In which case did the Supreme Court recognize that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?

a) Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi b) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India c) R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu d) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

b) The Supreme Court, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which laid the foundation for subsequent rulings on privacy-related issues.

6. Which landmark Supreme Court case declared the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional?

a) Danial Latifi v. Union of India b) Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd. Ahmed Khan c) Shayara Bano v. Union of India d) Mary Roy v. State of Kerala

c) In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional, stating that it was arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women.

7. In which judgment did the Supreme Court discuss the concept of "marital rape" and its legal implications in India?

a) Independent Thought v. Union of India b) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan c) Joseph Shine v. Union of India d) State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash

a) In Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse with a minor wife amounts to rape, thereby partially addressing the issue of marital rape within the scope of child protection laws.

8. Which case redefined the legal approach to euthanasia and passive euthanasia in India?

a) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab b) Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India c) Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India d) State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal

b) In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia under specific conditions, recognizing the right to die with dignity as part of the right to life under Article 21.

9. Which Supreme Court judgment held that a woman’s right to reproductive choice is an integral part of her personal liberty under Article 21?

a) Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration b) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India c) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India d) Joseph Shine v. Union of India

a) In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), the Supreme Court emphasized a woman's right to make reproductive choices as an integral part of her personal liberty under Article 21.

10. Which case clarified the application of the right to self-defense under Section 96 of the IPC?

a) Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat b) State of Orissa v. Nalinikanta Muduli c) Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab d) Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat

c) In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010), the Supreme Court elaborated on the right to self-defense under Section 96 of the IPC, clarifying that this right is available to a person as a defense against any unlawful aggression.

If any answer found wrong, Please comment.

---

© 2025 UnIQ Coaching. All rights reserved.