List of practice Questions

Same-sex marriage has no legal recognition in India as per the recent Supreme Court's judgment, where it was decided that this is an issue for Parliament to address. While Hindu marriages between transgender persons and cisgender men are permissible, and the Court acknowledged systemic discrimination and the right to choose a partner, it held that there is no fundamental right to marry. The government has been urged to form a panel to consider granting more legal rights to same-sex couples, but the legal status of marriage remains unchanged for now. The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023), in a majority verdict, ruled that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, making it beyond the court's scope to legislate on same-sex marriage.
The Court stated that the power to legislate on same-sex marriage rests with the Parliament and state legislatures. The judgment affirmed constitutional rights for LGBTQ+ citizens and the right to choose a partner. The government agreed to set up a panel to explore legal rights and benefits for same-sex couples, though these benefits are not the same as those conferred by marriage. Same-sex couples cannot legally marry and do not receive the same legal rights, such as automatic inheritance, pension, or adoption rights, that legally married couples do. Despite the ruling, LGBTQ+ couples continue to face legal discrimination and have no social recognition of marriage. The Court affirmed the right of same-sex couples to cohabit privately. While the Supreme Court's verdict brought limited benefits and acknowledgments, it has not legalized same-sex marriage in India, deferring the ultimate decision to the Parliament. (279 words)
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from "The Hindu", dated 27th October 2023]

The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose 'reasonable restrictions' on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribes.

To maintain the secular character of the Indian polity, not only does the Constitution of India guarantee freedom of religion to individuals and groups, but it is also against the general policy of the Constitution of India that any money be paid out of the public funds for promoting or maintaining any particular religion. Accordingly, it is provided in the Constitution of India that no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. This does not prohibit the State from enacting a law to incur expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination, but by such law, no person can be compelled to pay any tax, the proceeds of which are to be so utilized. This, however, does not invalidate levy of a fee to provide some service. Thus, a fee can be levied on pilgrims to a religious fair to meet the expenses of the measures taken to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the pilgrims. Such fee levied by a State will be valid because the object of such contribution is not to foster or preserve religion, but to control secular administration of religious institutions.

Principle: Doing of an act which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to public or which is likely to cause such injury or annoyance is Public nuisance. A common nuisance is not excused because it causes some nuisance or advantage.
Facts: 'A‘ a farmer having large farmlands burns crop residue (stubble) on his fields after harvesting the crop to make the field ready for next crop as this is the easy, fast and convenient method of making the field ready for next crop. His farmlands are adjoining a densely inhabited residential area and people pass through the smoke while travelling on the road adjoining his farmlands. The smoke caused by fire also enters the houses in the colony.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

Principle: Anyone who induces or attempts to induce a voter to vote in a particular manner on the ground that the voter will face divine displeasure, shall be guilty of offence of interfering with free exercise of right to vote.
Facts: During election campaign period one candidate X told the voters that if they do not vote for her, voters will be cursed because the election candidate is the God‘s own child and those who do not vote for her, they will not be liked by God.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.