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

In a bailable offence,

  1. conditions can be imposed while granting bail by the police officer

  2. conditions can be imposed while granting bail by the court

  3. no condition can be imposed while granting bail by the police officer or by the court

  4. only mild conditions can be imposed by the court only
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (3) is correct: In a bailable offence, conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail either by police officer or by the court.

Multiple choice

Defamation by spoken words or gestures is known as

  1. innuendo

  2. slander

  3. libel

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

Option (1) is incorrect: An indirect intimation about a person or thing, of a disparaging nature Option (2) is correct: Defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. Option (3) is incorrect: Defamation by written or printed words, pictures or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures Option (4) is incorrect: Option (2) is correct.

Multiple choice

Match the following:

 
List I List II
I. Habeas corpus A. Violation of natural justice
II. Mandamus B. Unlawful arrest and detention
III. Quo warranto C. Exercise of power without jurisdiction
IV. Cerritory D. Non-performance of public duty

  1. I – B, II – D, III – C, IV – A

  2. I – A, Il – C, III – D, IV – B

  3. I – B, II – C, III – D, IV – A

  4. I – A, Il – D, III – C, IV – B
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

I – B, II – D, III – C, IV – A

Multiple choice

Which of these does not constitute Fraud?

  1. Suggestion as a fact, of something which is not true, by a person who does not believe it to be true.

  2. Active concealment of a Fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact.

  3. Innocent statement, honestly believing the same to be true.

  4. Promise made without any intention of performing it.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Fraud requires an intention to deceive. An innocent statement made by a person who honestly believes it to be true constitutes misrepresentation, not fraud.

Multiple choice

Where one party is in a position to dominate the will of another and uses his superior position to obtain the consent of a weaker party, the consent is said to be obtained by -

  1. undue influence

  2. fraud

  3. coercion

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

Undue influence occurs when one party occupies a position of power over another and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage. This superior position allows them to dominate the will of the weaker party, making the resulting consent invalid. It is a key concept in ensuring that contracts are entered into freely and fairly.

Multiple choice

Ombudsman means

  1. A third party grievances redressal person appointed by the buyer of goods and services

  2. A third party grievances redressal person appointed by the seller of goods and services

  3. A third party grievances redressal person appointed jointly by the seller and buyer of goods and services whenever disputes arise

  4. A third party grievances redressal person appointed by the Government
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

An Ombudsman is an official, usually appointed by the government or by parliament, who represents the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints against public bodies or administrations.

Multiple choice

Defamation by spoken words or gestures is known as

  1. innuendo

  2. slander

  3. libel

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

Option (1) is incorrect: An indirect intimation about a person or thing, mostly of a disparaging nature, is called innuendo. Option (2) is correct: Defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. is called slander. Option (3) is incorrect: Defamation by written or printed words, pictures or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures is called libel.

 

Multiple choice

The defense counsel's defense relies mainly on arguing before the jury that _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Esteemed members of the Jury …. If you want to condemn these twenty men, then do it. I beseech no kindness on behalf of any one of them. They are no better than any other twenty men or women; they are no better than the millions down through the times who have been indicted and convicted in cases like this. And if it is obligatory for my clients to show that America is like all the rest, if it is necessary that my clients shall go to penitentiary to show it, then let them go. They can afford it if you members of the jury can; make no mistake about that.

The State says my clients “dare to disparage the Constitution.” Yet this police officer (who the State says is a fine, right–living person) twice dishonored the federal Constitution while a prosecuting attorney was standing by. They entered Mr. Foster’s home without a search warrant. They overhauled his papers. They found a flag, a red one, which he had the same right to have in his house that you have to keep a green one, or a yellow one, or any other color, and the officer daringly rolled it up and put another flag on the wall, nailed it there. By what right was that done? What about this kind of patriotism that violates the Constitution? Has it come to pass in this country that officers of the law can trample on constitutional rights and then excuse it in a court of justice?

Most of what has been shown to this jury to incite emotions in your souls has not the least bearing on confirming conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Hepburn’s speech in Aspen. It is devoid of any conspiracy whatsoever.

Whether that speech was a comic story or was serious, I shall spare the efforts of discussing it. But I shall make a point to state that if it was serious it was as gentle as a summer’s spell of rain in contrast with many of the avowals of those who are accountable for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people of position assert that individuals who carp the actions of those who are getting prosperous should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and sent out to sea. Every vicious appeal that could be envisaged by the brain has been used by the dominant and the strong. I reiterate, Mr. Hepburn’s speech was gentle in comparison.

My clients are damned because they say in their platform that, while they vote, they believe the ballot is secondary to education and organization. Counsel proposes that those who get something they did not vote for are sinners, but I guess you the jury know in true light that my clients are right. Most of you have an eight–hour day. Did you get it by any vote you ever cast? No. It came about because workers laid down their tools and said we will no longer work until we get an eight–hour day. That is how they got the twelve–hour day, the ten–hour day, and the eight–hour day–not by voting but by laying down their tools. Then when it was over and the victory won . . . then the politicians, in order to get the labor vote, passed legislation creating an eight–hour day. That is how things changed; victory preceded law . . .

You have been informed that if you acquit these defendants you will be despised because you will endorse everything they believe. But I am not here to defend my clients’ belief. I am here to protect their right to communicate their outlook. I ask you, then; to make your mind up on this case upon the facts as you have heard them, in light of the law as you infer it, in light of the history of our country, whose foundation you and I are ought to guard.

  1. the prosecution is using a double standard

  2. the evidence used by the prosecution is unreliable

  3. the defendants' views are similar to those of the jury

  4. labor unions are guaranteed the right to hold a strike
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Correct answer is (1). The lawyer believes that the prosecution is using a double standard. The second paragraph cites more examples of how the lawyer shows that the prosecution is guilty of doing exactly what it has accused the defendants of doing. In this case, the accused are said to have used violent words and the lawyer is giving examples of violent threats that have been aimed at the defendants. Answer choice (2) is close but the evidence is not unreliable. The lawyer's point is unconstitutional means.

Multiple choice

If the substance of a statute is in reality beyond the competence of the legislature, the veil that covers it, will not save it

  1. Doctrine of harmonious construction

  2. Doctrine of Colourable legislation

  3. Doctrine of pith and substance

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

The doctrine of colourability is the idea that when the legislature wants to do something that it cannot do within the constraints of the constitution, it colours the law with a substitute purpose which will still allow it to accomplish its original goal.

Multiple choice

This writ is issued to an inferior court or tribunal on ground of exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice.

Which of the following is the correct option in relation to the above statement?

  1. Certiorari

  2. Mandamus

  3. Quo warranto

  4. Habeas corpus

  5. None of the above
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Writ of certiorari is issued by a higher court to a lower court when the superior court believes that either the inferior court had no jurisdiction or committed an error of law or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice. Thus, it is the correct answer.

Multiple choice

This writ is issued by a superior court directing an inferior court to send the record of a proceeding for review.

Which of the following is such a writ that can be issued as defined above?

  1. Mandamus

  2. Habeas corpus

  3. Certiorari

  4. Quo warranto

  5. None of the above
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

The writ of certiorari is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a case pending with that to it or squash its order. Thus, writ of certiorari can be issued only against the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. It is the correct answer.