CLAT PG question bank

Administrative Law MCQs for CLAT PG, Page 4

CLAT PG Administrative Law questions 76-100 of 100, with answer keys and explanations covering delegated legislation, natural justice, tribunals, discretion, judicial review, and state accountability.

100 questions20 topics76-100 on this page
Start adaptive practiceBrowse CLAT PG

Coverage

Topics in this subject

Revise core LLB subjects through CLAT PG MCQs, passage-led questions, answer keys, explanations, statutes, and exam-oriented legal principles.

  • Administrative Discretion and its Abuse5
  • Administrative Tribunals5
  • Certiorari and Ultra Vires Doctrine5
  • Control of Delegated Legislation - Parliamentary and Judicial5
  • Delegated Legislation - Nature and Validity5
  • Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Government Contracts5
  • Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel5
  • Doctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law5
  • Doctrine of Separation of Powers in Administrative Context5
  • Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Grounds5
  • Legitimate Expectation5
  • Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem5
  • Natural Justice - Rule Against Bias5
  • Nature and Scope of Administrative Law5
  • Ombudsman - Lokpal and Lokayukta5
  • Principles of Natural Justice - Fairness in Public Law5
  • Quasi-Judicial Functions and Duty to Give Reasons5
  • Right to Information and Transparency5
  • Rule of Law - Dicey and Indian Constitution5
  • Tortious Liability of the State5
Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Ridge v. Baldwin / Board of Education v. Rice

The concept of procedural fairness in administrative law has evolved significantly over the twentieth century. Initially, natural justice was applied narrowly - only to bodies having the duty to act judicially. The landmark decision in Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) by the English House of Lords expanded natural justice to all administrative decisions affecting rights, irrespective of the characterisation of the function as 'judicial,' 'quasi-judicial' or 'administrative.' Lord Reid held that any body or person that makes decisions affecting the rights, interests or legitimate expectations of individuals must observe basic procedural fairness. In India, the evolution followed a similar path. The Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) - a case involving selection to the Indian Forest Service - held that natural justice applied to the selection process even though it was purely administrative in character, because it affected the rights and opportunities of the applicants. The courts have held that the right to a fair hearing adapts to the circumstances: what is 'fair' depends on the nature of the decision, the consequences for the individual, the practicalities of the situation, and any statutory guidance. In some contexts, an oral hearing is required; in others, a written submission suffices. The underlying principle is that those affected by adverse decisions have a legitimate expectation of being heard. Fairness in public law has progressively merged with natural justice - in modern administrative law, the relevant question is not whether natural justice technically applies but whether the decision-making process was substantively fair to the person affected.

Question 76EasyPrinciples of Natural Justice - Fairness in Public Law

Before Ridge v. Baldwin (1964), natural justice was applied:

  1. A

    To all administrative decisions

  2. B

    Only to bodies having the duty to act judicially - it was applied narrowly

  3. C

    Only to criminal proceedings

  4. D

    Only to decisions affecting property rights

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Only to bodies having the duty to act judicially - it was applied narrowly

The passage states: 'Initially, natural justice was applied narrowly - only to bodies having the duty to act judicially.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ridge v. Baldwin / Board of Education v. Rice

Question 77EasyPrinciples of Natural Justice - Fairness in Public Law

In Ridge v. Baldwin (1964), Lord Reid held that any body making decisions affecting rights must:

  1. A

    Follow parliamentary procedure

  2. B

    Observe basic procedural fairness regardless of whether the function is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative

  3. C

    Obtain court approval before deciding

  4. D

    Give reasons for all decisions

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Observe basic procedural fairness regardless of whether the function is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative

The passage states: 'Lord Reid held that any body or person that makes decisions affecting the rights, interests or legitimate expectations of individuals must observe basic procedural fairness.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ridge v. Baldwin / Board of Education v. Rice

Question 78MediumPrinciples of Natural Justice - Fairness in Public Law

In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court held that natural justice applied to selection to the Indian Forest Service because:

  1. A

    The selection process was judicial in character

  2. B

    It affected the rights and opportunities of the applicants - even though the process was purely administrative

  3. C

    The Supreme Court had specifically directed its application

  4. D

    The Selection Committee members were judges

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. It affected the rights and opportunities of the applicants - even though the process was purely administrative

The passage states: 'natural justice applied to the selection process even though it was purely administrative in character, because it affected the rights and opportunities of the applicants.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ridge v. Baldwin / Board of Education v. Rice

Question 79MediumPrinciples of Natural Justice - Fairness in Public Law

What does 'fair hearing' require according to the passage?

  1. A

    Always a full oral hearing before a panel of three judges

  2. B

    It adapts to circumstances - the nature and consequences of the decision determine whether an oral hearing, written submission or other process is required

  3. C

    Always a right to legal representation

  4. D

    Completion within 30 days

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. It adapts to circumstances - the nature and consequences of the decision determine whether an oral hearing, written submission or other process is required

The passage states: 'the right to a fair hearing adapts to the circumstances: what is fair depends on the nature of the decision, the consequences for the individual, the practicalities of the situation, and any statutory guidance.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ridge v. Baldwin / Board of Education v. Rice

Question 80HardPrinciples of Natural Justice - Fairness in Public Law

In modern administrative law, according to the passage, the relevant question is:

  1. A

    Whether natural justice technically applies or not

  2. B

    Whether the decision-making process was substantively fair to the person affected - fairness has progressively merged with natural justice

  3. C

    Whether the authority was sufficiently senior

  4. D

    Whether the authority followed its own internal rules

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Whether the decision-making process was substantively fair to the person affected - fairness has progressively merged with natural justice

The passage states: 'in modern administrative law, the relevant question is not whether natural justice technically applies but whether the decision-making process was substantively fair to the person affected.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ridge v. Baldwin / Board of Education v. Rice

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976)

Administrative authorities frequently perform functions that are neither purely legislative nor purely judicial but have characteristics of both - these are described as quasi-judicial functions. A quasi-judicial authority is one which has the duty to act judicially - to consider the rights of parties and to decide by applying legal principles to the facts, even though it is not a court. The hallmarks of a quasi-judicial function are: the determination of a dispute between parties, the requirement to act fairly, and the application of legal or factual criteria to reach a conclusion. The duty to give reasons for a decision is one of the important requirements in quasi-judicial proceedings. In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India (1976), the Supreme Court held that administrative or quasi-judicial orders that affect the rights of parties must be supported by reasons - the giving of reasons serves three purposes: (1) it concentrates the mind of the decision-maker and reduces the chance of arbitrary decisions; (2) it enables the affected party to understand why the decision was made against them; and (3) it facilitates effective judicial review by giving courts sufficient material to examine the legality and rationality of the decision. An unreasoned decision or a decision with entirely inadequate reasons may be set aside on judicial review. However, the duty to give reasons is not absolute - it can be excluded by statute or may not be required in urgent situations where giving reasons would defeat the purpose of the action.

Question 81EasyQuasi-Judicial Functions and Duty to Give Reasons

A quasi-judicial function is described in the passage as one that:

  1. A

    Is purely administrative with no adjudicatory element

  2. B

    Has characteristics of both legislative and judicial functions - requiring determination of disputes between parties, fair procedure, and application of legal/factual criteria

  3. C

    Only applies to criminal proceedings

  4. D

    Is performed exclusively by High Courts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Has characteristics of both legislative and judicial functions - requiring determination of disputes between parties, fair procedure, and application of legal/factual criteria

The passage describes quasi-judicial functions as those with 'the determination of a dispute between parties, the requirement to act fairly, and the application of legal or factual criteria to reach a conclusion.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976)

Question 82EasyQuasi-Judicial Functions and Duty to Give Reasons

In Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976), the Supreme Court held that administrative orders affecting rights must:

  1. A

    Be approved by Parliament

  2. B

    Be supported by reasons

  3. C

    Be accompanied by a right of appeal

  4. D

    Be made within 30 days

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Be supported by reasons

The passage states: 'In Siemens Engineering...the Supreme Court held that administrative or quasi-judicial orders that affect the rights of parties must be supported by reasons.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976)

Question 83MediumQuasi-Judicial Functions and Duty to Give Reasons

According to the passage, the duty to give reasons serves which three purposes?

  1. A

    Saves time, reduces paperwork and increases efficiency

  2. B

    Concentrates the decision-maker's mind reducing arbitrariness; enables the affected party to understand the decision; and facilitates effective judicial review

  3. C

    Protects the government from legal liability; increases transparency; and reduces appeals

  4. D

    Educates the public, trains officials and improves governance

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Concentrates the decision-maker's mind reducing arbitrariness; enables the affected party to understand the decision; and facilitates effective judicial review

The passage states: '(1) it concentrates the mind of the decision-maker and reduces the chance of arbitrary decisions; (2) it enables the affected party to understand why the decision was made against them; and (3) it facilitates effective judicial review.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976)

Question 84MediumQuasi-Judicial Functions and Duty to Give Reasons

An unreasoned decision or a decision with inadequate reasons may:

  1. A

    Never be challenged in court

  2. B

    Be set aside on judicial review

  3. C

    Only be challenged before a tribunal, not a court

  4. D

    Be set aside only if Parliament passes a special resolution

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Be set aside on judicial review

The passage states: 'An unreasoned decision or a decision with entirely inadequate reasons may be set aside on judicial review.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976)

Question 85HardQuasi-Judicial Functions and Duty to Give Reasons

According to the passage, the duty to give reasons is:

  1. A

    Absolute and cannot be excluded in any circumstance

  2. B

    Not absolute - it can be excluded by statute or may not be required in urgent situations where giving reasons would defeat the purpose

  3. C

    Required only in Supreme Court matters

  4. D

    Only applicable to government employment cases

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Not absolute - it can be excluded by statute or may not be required in urgent situations where giving reasons would defeat the purpose

The passage states: 'the duty to give reasons is not absolute - it can be excluded by statute or may not be required in urgent situations where giving reasons would defeat the purpose of the action.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976)

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Right to Information Act 2005 / Article 19(1)(a)

The right to information is a fundamental component of transparent and accountable governance. In India, the right to information was recognised as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) by the Supreme Court as early as in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982), where the Court held that the right to know is an integral part of free speech. The Right to Information Act 2005 - enacted under Parliament's legislative power to implement fundamental rights - provides a statutory framework for this right, enabling any citizen to seek information from any public authority. The RTI Act creates a presumption in favour of disclosure: all information held by public authorities is available to citizens subject to specific exemptions. The exemptions under Section 8 include information affecting sovereignty, security, strategic interests, cabinet deliberations, and personal information with no public interest. The Act established a two-tier appellate mechanism: first appeal to the first appellate authority within the public authority, and second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission. The Information Commissioners have the power to impose penalties on public information officers for wrongful denial of information. A significant limitation is that the RTI Act does not apply to certain security and intelligence organisations listed in the Second Schedule. The Supreme Court in a series of cases has held that the right to information enables citizens to participate effectively in democracy, check corruption, and hold public officials accountable - it is therefore an essential component of the democratic framework guaranteed by the Constitution.

Question 86EasyRight to Information and Transparency

The right to information was first recognised as part of the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) in:

  1. A

    Kesavananda Bharati case

  2. B

    S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982)

  3. C

    Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

  4. D

    Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982)

The passage states: 'The right to information was recognised as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) by the Supreme Court as early as in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982).'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Right to Information Act 2005 / Article 19(1)(a)

Question 87EasyRight to Information and Transparency

The RTI Act creates a presumption in favour of:

  1. A

    Confidentiality of all government information

  2. B

    Disclosure - all information held by public authorities is available to citizens subject to specific exemptions

  3. C

    Selective disclosure only for media persons

  4. D

    Disclosure only to persons directly affected by the information

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Disclosure - all information held by public authorities is available to citizens subject to specific exemptions

The passage states: 'The RTI Act creates a presumption in favour of disclosure: all information held by public authorities is available to citizens subject to specific exemptions.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Right to Information Act 2005 / Article 19(1)(a)

Question 88MediumRight to Information and Transparency

The two-tier appellate mechanism under the RTI Act consists of:

  1. A

    District Court and High Court

  2. B

    First appeal to the first appellate authority within the public authority, and second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission

  3. C

    Only the Information Commission

  4. D

    Direct appeal to the Supreme Court

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. First appeal to the first appellate authority within the public authority, and second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission

The passage states: 'The Act established a two-tier appellate mechanism: first appeal to the first appellate authority within the public authority, and second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Right to Information Act 2005 / Article 19(1)(a)

Question 89MediumRight to Information and Transparency

Which of the following is mentioned in the passage as an exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act?

  1. A

    Information about government schemes

  2. B

    Personal information with no public interest

  3. C

    Information about court judgments

  4. D

    Information about parliamentary debates

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Personal information with no public interest

The passage lists exemptions including 'personal information with no public interest' under Section 8.

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Right to Information Act 2005 / Article 19(1)(a)

Question 90EasyRight to Information and Transparency

According to the passage, the RTI Act is an essential component of the democratic framework because:

  1. A

    It increases government revenue

  2. B

    It enables citizens to participate effectively in democracy, check corruption, and hold public officials accountable

  3. C

    It reduces the workload of the judiciary

  4. D

    It creates employment for information officers

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. It enables citizens to participate effectively in democracy, check corruption, and hold public officials accountable

The passage states: 'the right to information enables citizens to participate effectively in democracy, check corruption, and hold public officials accountable - it is therefore an essential component of the democratic framework guaranteed by the Constitution.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Right to Information Act 2005 / Article 19(1)(a)

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Dicey / ADM Jabalpur / Article 14

A.V. Dicey in his work 'Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution' (1885) propounded the doctrine of Rule of Law as consisting of three elements: first, the supremacy of regular law over arbitrary power - no man is punishable except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary manner before the ordinary courts; second, equality before the law - every person, whatever their rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law and ordinary courts; third, the constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land - constitutional law in England was not a separate source of rights but derived from decisions of ordinary courts protecting individual rights. Dicey's concept has been criticised on several grounds: his second element (equality) is undermined by the fact that governments often grant immunities to officials; his third element does not apply to countries with written constitutions; and his general hostility to administrative law ignored that administrative authorities may function more efficiently than ordinary courts in technical matters. In India, the Rule of Law is given constitutional expression primarily through Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws) and the writ jurisdiction of courts. The Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) controversially held that during Emergency, there was no Rule of Law separate from the Constitution - a view later repudiated in Puttaswamy (2017) where the Court held that the Rule of Law, the right to life and the right to personal liberty exist independently of and antecedent to the State. In India, the Rule of Law is seen as a basic feature of the Constitution.

Question 91EasyRule of Law - Dicey and Indian Constitution

Dicey's first element of Rule of Law holds that:

  1. A

    Parliament is supreme and can pass any law

  2. B

    No man is punishable except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary manner before the ordinary courts

  3. C

    Judges are above the law

  4. D

    Administrative authorities have supremacy over courts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. No man is punishable except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary manner before the ordinary courts

The passage states Dicey's first element is 'the supremacy of regular law over arbitrary power - no man is punishable except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary manner before the ordinary courts.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Dicey / ADM Jabalpur / Article 14

Question 92EasyRule of Law - Dicey and Indian Constitution

Dicey's second element of Rule of Law - equality - is criticised because:

  1. A

    It goes too far in promoting equality

  2. B

    It is undermined by the fact that governments often grant immunities to officials

  3. C

    It applies only to England

  4. D

    It requires identical treatment of all persons

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. It is undermined by the fact that governments often grant immunities to officials

The passage states: 'his second element (equality) is undermined by the fact that governments often grant immunities to officials.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Dicey / ADM Jabalpur / Article 14

Question 93MediumRule of Law - Dicey and Indian Constitution

In India, the Rule of Law is given constitutional expression primarily through:

  1. A

    Article 21 alone

  2. B

    Article 14 (equality before law) and the writ jurisdiction of courts

  3. C

    Only Article 32

  4. D

    The Preamble alone

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Article 14 (equality before law) and the writ jurisdiction of courts

The passage states: 'In India, the Rule of Law is given constitutional expression primarily through Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws) and the writ jurisdiction of courts.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Dicey / ADM Jabalpur / Article 14

Question 94MediumRule of Law - Dicey and Indian Constitution

In adm Jabalpur (1976), the Supreme Court controversially held that during Emergency:

  1. A

    The Rule of Law continued fully without any suspension

  2. B

    There was no Rule of Law separate from the Constitution

  3. C

    Administrative authorities could act without any legal authority

  4. D

    Courts could continue to function normally

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. There was no Rule of Law separate from the Constitution

The passage states: 'The Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) controversially held that during Emergency, there was no Rule of Law separate from the Constitution.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Dicey / ADM Jabalpur / Article 14

Question 95HardRule of Law - Dicey and Indian Constitution

In Puttaswamy (2017), the Supreme Court held regarding the Rule of Law that:

  1. A

    It confirmed the adm Jabalpur view that Rule of Law depends on the Constitution

  2. B

    The Rule of Law, right to life and right to personal liberty exist independently of and antecedent to the State - repudiating adm Jabalpur

  3. C

    Rule of Law cannot be enforced against the executive

  4. D

    Emergency automatically suspends all aspects of Rule of Law

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The Rule of Law, right to life and right to personal liberty exist independently of and antecedent to the State - repudiating adm Jabalpur

The passage states: 'In Puttaswamy (2017) where the Court held that the Rule of Law, the right to life and the right to personal liberty exist independently of and antecedent to the State.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Dicey / ADM Jabalpur / Article 14

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP / Nilabati Behera

The question of whether and when the State is liable in tort for wrongful acts of its servants raises fundamental questions about the accountability of government. In English law, the Crown was traditionally immune from tortious liability - the maxim 'the King can do no wrong' meant the Crown could not be sued. This immunity was abolished by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in England. In India, prior to independence, the position was governed by the Government of India Act 1858 which distinguished between acts done in the exercise of 'sovereign functions' (for which the State was immune) and 'non-sovereign functions' (for which it was liable). The Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP (1965) upheld the sovereign/non-sovereign distinction, holding that the State was not liable for the wrongful act of a police officer who had stolen property seized from the plaintiff - the act was done in the exercise of a sovereign function. This decision was heavily criticised and has been progressively eroded. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court awarded compensation for illegal detention under Article 32, establishing a constitutional remedy. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Court awarded compensation for custodial death under Article 32/226, holding that the constitutional remedy for violation of fundamental rights is distinct from the private law tort remedy and is available regardless of the sovereign/non-sovereign distinction. Today the trend is strongly in favour of State liability for all wrongful acts of government servants committed in the course of their employment.

Question 96EasyTortious Liability of the State

The traditional English maxim 'the King can do no wrong' meant:

  1. A

    The King was morally perfect

  2. B

    The Crown was traditionally immune from tortious liability and could not be sued

  3. C

    The King's decisions were always legally correct

  4. D

    Government officials could never be personally liable

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The Crown was traditionally immune from tortious liability and could not be sued

The passage states: 'the maxim the King can do no wrong meant the Crown could not be sued' and this immunity 'was abolished by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in England.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP / Nilabati Behera

Question 97EasyTortious Liability of the State

In Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP (1965), the Supreme Court held that the State was not liable because:

  1. A

    The police officer acted outside the scope of his employment

  2. B

    The act was done in the exercise of a sovereign function - police seizure of property is a sovereign function

  3. C

    The plaintiff had consented to the risk

  4. D

    There was no negligence by the officer

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The act was done in the exercise of a sovereign function - police seizure of property is a sovereign function

The passage states the Court held 'the State was not liable for the wrongful act of a police officer who had stolen property seized from the plaintiff - the act was done in the exercise of a sovereign function.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP / Nilabati Behera

Question 98HardTortious Liability of the State

The constitutional remedy for violation of fundamental rights by State actors, as developed in Rudul Sah (1983) and Nilabati Behera (1993), is:

  1. A

    Available only through ordinary civil courts

  2. B

    Distinct from private law tort remedy and available under Articles 32/226 regardless of the sovereign/non-sovereign distinction

  3. C

    Available only when the tortfeasor has been criminally convicted

  4. D

    Subject to the one-year limitation period of civil suits

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Distinct from private law tort remedy and available under Articles 32/226 regardless of the sovereign/non-sovereign distinction

The passage states: 'the constitutional remedy for violation of fundamental rights is distinct from the private law tort remedy and is available regardless of the sovereign/non-sovereign distinction.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP / Nilabati Behera

Question 99MediumTortious Liability of the State

In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court awarded compensation for:

  1. A

    Illegal detention under Article 356

  2. B

    Custodial death - a death that occurred while the victim was in police custody - under Articles 32 and 226

  3. C

    Loss of property due to police search

  4. D

    Defamation by government officials

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Custodial death - a death that occurred while the victim was in police custody - under Articles 32 and 226

The passage states: 'In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Court awarded compensation for custodial death under Article 32/226.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP / Nilabati Behera

Question 100MediumTortious Liability of the State

According to the passage, the current trend in Indian law regarding State liability for wrongful acts of government servants is:

  1. A

    To maintain strict immunity for sovereign functions

  2. B

    Strongly in favour of State liability for all wrongful acts of government servants committed in the course of their employment

  3. C

    To increase immunity for national security matters

  4. D

    To transfer liability entirely to the individual servant

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Strongly in favour of State liability for all wrongful acts of government servants committed in the course of their employment

The passage states: 'Today the trend is strongly in favour of State liability for all wrongful acts of government servants committed in the course of their employment.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP / Nilabati Behera

Continue revision

ADR and Arbitration20 questions with explanationsBSA70 questions with explanationsCode of Civil Procedure 190845 questions with explanationsConstitutional Law100 questions with explanationsCriminal Law (BNS 2023)85 questions with explanationsEnvironmental Law50 questions with explanations