Law Legal Studies · Civics Polity

Legal Principles and Doctrines

2,539 Questions

Legal principles and doctrines establish the foundational rules of jurisprudence and civil rights. Questions cover constitutional reasonable restrictions, courtroom evidence standards, and property laws. These topics are strictly necessary for law legal studies exams and judicial services prelims.

Constitutional doctrinesGuardianship rightsExpert testimony standardsCriminal trial instructionsContractual authorityRegistration law principles

Legal Principles and Doctrines Questions

Multiple choice

The term legal sub judice means a

  1. case has been decided by a court

  2. case is pending before a court

  3. case has been dismissed by a court

  4. None of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

In law, the term 'sub judice' is a Latin term, which means under judgment. In other words, it means a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court.

Multiple choice

Directions: A brief passage or a statement is given, and a question is asked, based on the information provided by the passage/statement. The question has four alternatives marked 1 to 4. Critically examine them and choose the best answer.

Which of the following if true, puts a legitimate doubt on the claims of the police?

Police has claimed that with imposition of speed limits, the number of deaths per kilometre driven, on a highway has been reduced substantially. But, there have been protests against the imposition of the speed limit, which itself has not been administered effectively.

  1. The transport drivers who work within a fixed time frame feel the measure as a deliberate harassment.

  2. The travelling public is of the opinion that accidents are due to the system of corruption in granting driving licences to the unqualified.

  3. The imposition has not been effective since the highway patrols are totally inadequate in catching erring drivers.

  4. The reduction in death is more due to ban on movement of vehicles in the midnight and early hours of the day.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

(1) Why the protests? Possible harassment, particularly because the imposition “has not been administered effectively”

Multiple choice

Directions: Select the most appropriate meaning for the given Latin expression.

Prima facie

  1. primary accused

  2. prior to commencement

  3. on first meeting

  4. at first sight
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning 'at first sight' or 'on the face of it.' It refers to evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact unless disproved. In legal contexts, it describes a case that has enough evidence to proceed unless the defense successfully disproves it.

Multiple choice

The maxim 'injuria sine damno' has been explained in the following case

  1. Donough Vs. Stevenson

  2. Ryland Vs. Fletcher

  3. Ashby Vs. White

  4. Braford Vs. Pickles
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Ashby v. White (1703) established the maxim 'injuria sine damno' - injury without damage. Voters were denied their right to vote; even though no material loss was proved, the court held the violation of a legal right itself constituted injury. Donoghue v. Stevenson established negligence, Ryland v. Fletcher established strict liability.

Multiple choice

Consider the following statements: An accused person can be compelled to: (i) give his finger prints (ii) give evidence against himself (iii) participate in the identification parade

Which of the above statements are correct?

  1. (i), (ii) and (iii)

  2. (ii) and (iii)

  3. (i) and (ii)

  4. (i) and (iii)
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

An accused can be compelled to give fingerprints (i) and participate in identification parade (iii) as these are considered evidence, not testimony. However, Article 20(3) and the right against self-incrimination protect an accused from being compelled to give evidence against themselves (ii). The Constitution protects against testimonial compulsion, not physical evidence like fingerprints.

Multiple choice

The legal maxim 'Qui facit peraliurn facit perse' means:

  1. The act of an agent is the act of principal.

  2. The act of husband is the act of wife

  3. The Act of a master is the act of a servant

  4. All the above
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The legal maxim 'Qui facit per alium facit per se' means 'He who acts through another acts himself'. This fundamental principle of agency law establishes that an agent's actions within authority are attributed to the principal. It's the foundation of vicarious liability and the entire agency relationship in law.

Multiple choice

The maxim Res ipso loquitur is a rule of

  1. evidence

  2. criminal law

  3. refutal of evidence

  4. vicarious liability
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') is a doctrine in the law of evidence. It allows negligence to be inferred when the accident would not normally occur without negligence, the defendant had exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute. It is part of evidence law, not criminal law, refutation, or vicarious liability.

Multiple choice

The maxim necessitatis non-habet legem means:

  1. Necessity is the mother of invention

  2. Necessity knows no law

  3. Injury to the legal right

  4. Injury to the moral right
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

The Latin maxim 'necessitatis non-habet legem' translates to 'necessity knows no law' in English. This legal principle means that in cases of extreme necessity or emergency, certain legal rules may be set aside. It is often invoked as a defense in criminal law and tort law where actions taken in an emergency situation would otherwise be unlawful. The doctrine of necessity recognizes that urgent circumstances may justify actions that would normally be illegal.

Multiple choice

In which of the following cases a clear difference between common intention and similar intention was well discussed?

  1. Barendra Kumar Ghose Vs. Emperor

  2. Mahboob Shah Vs. King Emperor

  3. Amjad Khan Vs. State of MP

  4. Sheraz Vs. De Rutzen
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

In Barendra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor, the Privy Council clearly distinguished between 'common intention' (Section 34 IPC) and 'similar intention'. Common intention requires a prior plan or meeting of minds, while similar intention means independent acts with similar intent. This case is the classic authority on this distinction, explaining the difference between joint liability under Section 34 and independent acts with similar intent.

Multiple choice

Respondent superior 'means

  1. respondent is superior than plaintiff

  2. master is superior

  3. servant is not liable

  4. master is vicariously liable
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

'Respondeat superior' is a Latin legal doctrine meaning 'let the master answer'. It holds employers (masters) vicariously liable for wrongful acts of employees (servants) committed in the course of employment. The doctrine does NOT mean the servant is personally immune - both can be liable.

Multiple choice

Which of the following statement is correct?

  1. Sec. 34 of l.P.C. is only a rule of evidence.

  2. Sec .34 of I.P.C. does not create a substantive offence.

  3. Both 1 and 2 are correct.

  4. None of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Section 34 IPC serves dual purposes - it's both a rule of evidence (how joint acts are proved) and creates substantive joint liability principles. Courts have consistently held that Section 34 is not merely evidentiary but establishes the substantive principle that when several persons commit a criminal act, each is liable as if they did it alone.

Multiple choice

Ignorantia tacit doth excusat means:

  1. Ignorance of law is no excuse

  2. Ignorance of law is an excuse in certain cases

  3. Ignorance of fact is an excuse

  4. Ignorance of law and fact both are excusable
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The Latin maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' (ignorance of law is no excuse) means that not knowing the law is not a valid defense. Every person is presumed to know the law. This principle ensures legal certainty and prevents people from avoiding liability by claiming ignorance. It distinguishes from ignorance of fact, which may sometimes be a defense.

Multiple choice

In which of the following cases the plea of sovereign immunity can be taken:

  1. Army truck injuring a pedestrian

  2. Police constable firing at a religious gathering

  3. Chief of Army Staff ordering war action

  4. An M.P. making a defamatory statement in a press-meet
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Sovereign immunity applies to acts of state, such as military operations and acts of war ordered by the sovereign or the head of the armed forces. Tortious acts committed by government servants in the course of ordinary law enforcement or administration, like traffic accidents by army trucks or police firings, are generally subject to liability and cannot claim sovereign immunity.