COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST -2020-PG

Read the judgment given below and answer the questions that follow:

“9. We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajeev Kumar
Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 13 SCC 153. In this judgment, the posts
in Prasar Bharati were classified into four Groups–A to D. The precise question that arose
before the Court is set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory benefit of 3
per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied insofar as identified posts in
Groups A and B are concerned, since these posts are to be filled through direct recruitment.
After noticing the arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held:
14. We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation in promotions as
propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were
permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR
1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations
in promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question whether reservations could
be permitted in matters of promotion under Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations
in promotion are not permitted under our constitutional scheme.
15. The respondent argued that the answer to Question 7 in Indra Sawhney squarely covers
the situation on hand and the reasons outlined by the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at…
must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B.
16. We do not agree with the respondent‟s submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the
context of reservations in favour of backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of
Article 16(4).
21. The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give
preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of
citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from
providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1)
if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for creating such preferential treatment
under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of
the factors such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. The basis for
providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden
under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra
Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD.”
Source: Excerpt taken from a Judgment of three judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman,
Aniruddha Bose & V. Ramasubramaniyam., JJ.

1. The above passage has been taken from which of the following recent judgments, relating
to the question of reservation in promotions for the disabled persons?
a) National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and
Training.
b) Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
c) Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
d) Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

2. Which of the following is true in context of the scheme provided under Article 16 of the
Indian Constitution, relating to reservation in promotion?
a) Reservation in promotion can only be granted to the class of citizens mentioned under
Article 16 (4).
b) Reservation in promotion cannot be granted to a class of citizen provided by the virtue of
Article 16 (1).
c) The scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to any class of citizens under the
scheme of Article 16 (1).
d) Reservation in promotion defeats the scheme of Article 16 (1) and Article 15 (1).

3. The Union government has issued an office memorandum under which 3% reservation
has been provided to the persons with disability, apart from the reservations provided to
different class of citizens such as 27% for OBCs, 14% to SCs and & 7% to STs. Now, the
total percentage of reservation has reached 51%, which is against the judgment given in
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. Now, choose the most appropriate option amongst the
following.
a) The reservation provided to persons with disability is constitutionally valid as it falls
within the horizontal scheme of reservation.
b) The judgment in Indira Sawhney is not applicable to the persons with disability and hence
such reservation is valid.
c) The reservation provided to persons with disability is invalid as in no case reservation can
increase 50%.
d) The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and hence
unconstitutional.

4. What is the meaning of the ―Catch-up‖ rule associated with the matters of seniority in
reservation in promotion?
a) If the junior candidate promoted on the basis of reservation gets promoted to further grade
by the time senior general category candidate is promoted to earlier grade, the question of
seniority does not arise.
b) A reserved category candidate promoted on the basis of reservation earlier than his senior
general category candidates in the feeder category, shall become junior when general
category senior candidate too gets promoted.
c) The candidate promoted to higher grade on the basis of reservation remains senior even if
his senior is promoted to the same grade.
d) None of the above.

5. The Article 16 (4A), provides for which of the following?
a) Catch-up rule.
b) Carry forward rule.
c) Consequential seniority.
d) All of the above.

6. The scheme of reservation in promotion is limited to which of the following as per the
text of Article 16 (4A)?
a) Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes.
b) Backward class of citizens.
c) PWD candidates.
d) All of the above.

7. Government policy of no reservation in promotion for class I and II posts was initially:
a) Struck down in C.A. Rajendra case.
b) Struck down in M. Nagraj case.
c) Upheld in Jarnail Singh case.
d) Upheld in C.A. Rajendra case.

8. Jarnail Singh case overruled the M. Nagraj on the issue of:
a) Collection of quantifiable data to determine inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs.
b) Collection of quantifiable data to determine the backwardness.
c) Collection of data on efficiency of administration.
d) All the above.

9. Creamy layer concept is applicable to
a) All reservations
b) SC ST reservations
c) OBC reservation
d) Only horizontal reservation

10. In Vivekanand Tiwari, Supreme Court held that the unit for reservation in universities
should be:
a) University as a whole
b) Faculties of the University
c) Departments of the University
d) (a) and (b)

It will be relevant to refer to the statement made by the contemnor which was made and read
out before this Court by the contemnor on 20.08.2020, which reads as under:
―I have gone through the judgment of this Hon‟ble Court. I am pained that I have
been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold –
not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard – for over three decades, at some
personal and professional cost. I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I
have been grossly misunderstood. I am shocked that the court holds me guilty of
“malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice. I am
dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my
motives to launch such an attack. I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not
find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the suo-motu
notice was issued, nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in
my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel. I find it hard to believe that the
Court finds my tweet “has the effect of destabilizing the very foundation of this
important pillar of Indian democracy”. I can only reiterate that these two tweets
represented my bona-fide beliefs, the expression of which must be permissible in any
democracy. Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself. I
believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the
constitutional order. We are living through that moment in our history when higher
principles must trump routine obligations, when saving the constitutional order must
come before personal and professional niceties, when considerations of the present must
not come in the way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up
would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself. My
tweets were nothing but a small attempt to discharge what I considered to be my highest duty
at this juncture in the history of our republic. I did not tweet in a fit of absence mindedness. It
would be insincere and contemptuous on my part to offer an apology for the tweets that
expressed what was and continues to be my bona-fide belief. Therefore, I can only humbly
paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: I do not ask
for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully submit to
any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an
offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.‖
Source: Excerpt taken from the Judgment delivered by Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai & Krishna
Murari, J.J.

11. The above passage has been taken from which of the following recent cases relating to
the Criminal Contempt of Court?
a) In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr.
b) The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr.
c) Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan
d) Union of India v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr.

12. The Source of power of the Supreme Court to take suo-motu cognizance of Contempt of
the Court has been provided under which of the following?
a) Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
b) Article 129 r/w Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
c) Article 129
d) Article 129 r/w Article 141.

13. Which of the following could be a valid defence for the contemnor in a contempt
proceeding against him?
a) Statements are bona-fide fair criticism without attributing motives to the judges.
b) Statements are the personal opinion of the person and do not have the capacity to
influence the thinking of public at large.
c) Statements are based on the quotes from retired judges of the Supreme Court.
d) Statements are mere opinions which does not fall under the category of the term
―scandalising the court.‖

14. In which of the following cases, the apex court held that, ―Contempt jurisdiction should
not be used by judges to uphold their own dignity. In the free market-place of ideas,
criticism about the judicial system or the judges should be welcomed, so long as
criticisms do not impair or hamper the „administration of justice‘.‖?
a) Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan
b) P.N. Duda v. V. P. Shivshankar
c) A.K. Gopalan v. Noordeen
d) Hari Singh Nagra v. Kapil Sibal

15. Which of the following can be stated as not true about the intent of the contemnor as
mentioned in the passage above?
a) He believes in the dignity and independence of judiciary and his act, further strengthens
his belief.
b) His statements hold the sanctity of the institution to be of utmost importance and his
actions will uphold the same.
c) He compares himself with the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi and puts himself at
the same pedestal.
d) His statements are criticism of an individual and not the institution itself and such
criticism is quintessential for a healthy democracy.