Law Maker
All subjects

Landmark Judgments MCQs and mock tests

159 distinct Landmark Judgments questions are in live Law Maker papers, used across 8 exams. Each was checked against the official text and comes with the answer and an explanation once you submit.

Build a Landmark Judgments test10 to 100 questions, your timer and marking, new questions first. Free account needed.

Read the cases: Landmark Judgments library (facts, issues, held and passages from the official judgments).

Landmark Judgments practice sets

5 sets, 2 free.

Exams with Landmark Judgments questions

Sample Landmark Judgments questions

From free papers. Try each one before you open the answer.

  1. Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3

    After 1 July 2024, the Directorate of Enforcement files a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Court takes cognizance without hearing the accused. Following Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (9 May 2025), the order taking cognizance:

    1. A. is valid, because the BNSS applies only to offences under the BNS and the PMLA contains its own complete code of procedure
    2. B. is liable to be set aside, because a PMLA complaint must be filed as a police report and not as a complaint before the Court
    3. C. is valid, because a hearing before cognizance is required by Section 223 only for complaints made against public servants
    4. D. is liable to be set aside, as the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS bars cognizance without hearing the accused
    Show the answer

    D. is liable to be set aside, as the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS bars cognizance without hearing the accused

    Complaints under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA are governed by the provisions on complaints to Magistrates, now Sections 223 to 226 BNSS. The first proviso to Section 223(1), which has no counterpart in Section 200 CrPC, bars cognizance without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard; the cognizance order was set aside on that ground alone.

  2. Question 2 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    According to K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961), the test of 'grave and sudden' provocation is whether:

    1. A. the provocation was given by acts of the deceased, since words or gestures can never be enough
    2. B. any person of ordinary prudence, whatever his class of society, would have killed the provoker
    3. C. the accused himself, given his own temperament and sensitivity, actually lost his power of self-control at the time
    4. D. a reasonable man of the same class of society as the accused, placed in his situation, would lose self-control
    Show the answer

    D. a reasonable man of the same class of society as the accused, placed in his situation, would lose self-control

    Nanavati stated that the test is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused and placed in his situation, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control, and that words and gestures may also, in some circumstances, amount to such provocation. The rule governs Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, now Exception 1 to Section 101 BNS.

  3. Question 3 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Constitution Bench:

    1. A. struck down the death penalty for murder as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21
    2. B. upheld the death penalty for murder but made it mandatory for murder by a life convict
    3. C. held death to be the normal sentence for murder and life imprisonment the exception
    4. D. upheld the death penalty for murder, to be imposed only in the 'rarest of rare' cases
    Show the answer

    D. upheld the death penalty for murder, to be imposed only in the 'rarest of rare' cases

    The majority rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty in Section 302 IPC and the sentencing procedure in Section 354(3) CrPC, holding that life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception, to be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.

  4. Question 4 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3

    In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (Constitution Bench, 19 November 2025), how was inter se seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (District Judges) directed to be fixed among regular promotees, officers promoted through the limited departmental competitive examination (LDCE) and direct recruits?

    1. A. By keeping a separate seniority list for each source, so that every officer retains the birthmark of the source of recruitment
    2. B. By the date of joining the cadre, with an added weightage of two years for direct recruits in view of their practice at the Bar
    3. C. By an annual 4-point roster filled in the repeating sequence of 2 regular promotees, 1 LDCE promotee and 1 direct recruit
    4. D. By giving regular promotees one year of seniority for every five years of service rendered as Civil Judges before promotion
    Show the answer

    C. By an annual 4-point roster filled in the repeating sequence of 2 regular promotees, 1 LDCE promotee and 1 direct recruit

    The Constitution Bench directed that seniority within the Higher Judicial Service be determined through an annual 4-point roster in the sequence of 2 regular promotees, 1 LDCE promotee and 1 direct recruit. It held that on entry into the common cadre officers lose the birthmark of their source, and it declined to classify officers on the basis of length or performance of earlier service as Civil Judges.

  5. Question 5 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), what did the majority hold about the Preventive Detention Act, 1950?

    1. A. Only Section 14, which barred disclosure to the court of the grounds of detention, was ultra vires
    2. B. Section 3, which empowered the Government to make detention orders, was ultra vires
    3. C. The Act was valid in its entirety, including its bar on disclosing the grounds of detention to the court
    4. D. The whole Act was void because it did not provide a fair, just and reasonable procedure
    Show the answer

    A. Only Section 14, which barred disclosure to the court of the grounds of detention, was ultra vires

    The majority held that the Act, except Section 14, did not contravene Part III. Section 14, which prohibited disclosure of the grounds of detention to the court, offended Article 22(5) and was struck down, but being severable it did not affect the rest of the Act, so the detention was upheld.