List of practice Questions

Which one of the following plexus is a part of the central nervous system in the brain and consists of capillaries, ventricles, and ependymal cells?

Light directed synthesis on silica wafers is a part of

Which of the following is not an objective of Biofortification in crops ?

Dobson units are used to measure thickness of

Select the favourable conditions required for the formation of oxyhaemoglobin at the alveoli

The artificial or synthetic seeds are prepared by the following process

Which one of the following is unorganized drug?

Distribution is perfusion rate limited in case of ......drugs

The majority of drugs that least binded to antivascular tissue is

Some individuals are obsessed with using purgatives regularly as a reflection of their psychological problem. Dangers of purgative overuse include all of the following EXCEPT:

Conversion of T4 to T3 inhibition is associated with

Which of the following is orally active testosterone derivative having progestational activity

The dehydration of aldol product of two acetaldehyde molecules through Elcb mechanism affords formation of

Differential manometer has advantage over simple manometer

Identify the incorrect pair.

Identify the correct statement.

Humans as well as the wildlife are completely dependent upon environment for their survival. Humans are completely dependent on the environment. Like humans, the wildlife is also dependent on the environment for its survival and also gets affected by the environment. The relationship between humans and animals can be understood by the food-chain and food-web. The wildlife is affected by several reasons such as population, deforestation, urbanisation, high number of industries, chemical effluents, unplanned land-use policies, and reckless use of natural resources, etc.
The Directive Principles of State Policy provide that protection and improvement of environment, safeguarding forest and wildlife have been duly enjoined upon the Government. Those principles have found statutory expression in various enactments i.e., the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 etc. which have been enforced by the court in various decisions. The inaction of the State to constitutional and statutory duties cannot be permitted. The Court has to issue appropriate directions to fulfil the mandate. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India provides fundamental duty to protect and preserve environment, wildlife, etc.

It is a cardinal principle of the law of contract that acceptance of an offer must be absolute and it can give no room for doubt. The offer and acceptance must be founded on three components, viz., ‘certainty’, ‘commitment’ and ‘communication’. However, when the acceptor puts any new condition while accepting the proposal already signed by the proposer, the contract is not complete until the proposer accepts that condition, as held by the Court in Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui,[(1973) 3 SCC 889]. An acceptance with a variation is no acceptance. It is, in effect and substance, simply a counter-proposal which must be accepted fully by the original proposer, before a contract is made.

There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and grant of bail, post-conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by the Court in Dataram Singh v. State of UP, [(2018) 3 SCC 22]. However, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Supreme Court has observed that in international human rights law, equality is founded upon two complementary principles: non-discrimination and reasonable differentiation. The principle of non-discrimination seeks to ensure that all persons can equally enjoy and exercise all their rights and freedoms. Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal participation. Equality not only implies preventing discrimination (example, the protection of individuals against unfavourable treatment by introducing anti-discrimination laws), but goes beyond in remedying discrimination against groups suffering systematic discrimination in society. In concrete terms, it means embracing the notion of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable accommodation. The move from the patronising and paternalistic approach to persons with disabilities represented by the medical model to viewing them as members of the community with equal rights has also been reflected in the evolution of international standards relating specifically to disabilities, as well as in moves to place the rights of persons with disabilities within the category of universal human rights. Disabled people no longer see their physical or mental limitations as a source of shame or as something to overcome in order to inspire others. What non-disabled people do not understand is that people with disabilities also have some rights, hopes and aspirations as everyone else. They do not want to depend on others. For this they want the proper environment to grow. It is the thinking of Disability Rights Movement, USA that it is not so much the disabled individual who needs to change, but the society

The Supreme Court judgment in B. Singh v. Union of India, [(2004) 3 SCC 363] held, when there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Public interest litigation (PIL) which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be ‘publicity interest litigation’ or ‘private interest litigation’ or ‘politics interest litigation’ or the latest trend ‘paise income litigation’. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it may become a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. The expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking

A question regarding the scope of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 was considered in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, [2019 SCC OnLine SC 423]. The court observed that the Central Government is empowered under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 to order investigation into the affairs of a company in public interest by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). Section 212(3) of the Companies Act provides that the investigation orders are required to be completed within the specified time. If it not so done, what should be the consequences and whether further proceedings or investigations shall be unlawful. The provision has to be seen in the context in which it occurs in the statute. Therefore, the stipulation of Section 212(3) regarding submission of the report ‘within such period as may be specified in the order’ is not to be taken as mandatory, but as purely directory. On the objective interpretation of the statutory provision, it cannot be said that on the expiry of that period the mandate in favour of SFIO must come to an end. If it was to come to an end, the legislation would have contemplated certain results thereof. In the absence of any clear stipulation, an interpretation that with the expiry of the period, the investigation must come to an end, will cause great violence to the scheme of legislation and with the expiry of mandate SFIO would also be powerless which would lead to an incongruous situation that serious frauds would remain beyond investigation.

It is well settled that while taking a decision regarding custody or other issues pertaining to a child, welfare of the child is of paramount consideration, not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in force. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, [(1973) 1 SCC 840], the Court held that object and purpose of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 is not merely physical custody of the minor but due protection of the rights of ward’s health, maintenance and education. In considering the question of welfare of minor, due regard has to be given to the right of the father as natural guardian, but if the custody of the father cannot promote the welfare of the children, he may be refused such guardianship. The word “welfare” has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases. Every child has right to proper health and education and it is the primary duty of the parents to ensure that child gets proper education. The courts in exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction have to decide such delicate questions. It has to consider the welfare of the child as of paramount importance taking into consideration other aspects of the matter including the rights of parents also

Conceptually, extradition is a rather complex jurisprudential zone as it has encompassed within itself various trajectories of apparently conflicting ideas. Generally, a State’s criminal jurisdiction extends over offences committed within its geographical boundaries but it is the common experience of all the countries that often a criminal committing an offence in one country flees to another country and thus seeks to avoid conviction and the consequential punishment. This poses a threat in all civilised countries to a fair adjudication of crime and sustaining the constitutional norms of rule of law. To remedy such anomalous and unjust situation, extradition has been evolved by way of international treaty obligation which ensures a mode of formal surrender of an accused by one country to another based on reciprocal arrangements. In India, extradition has not been defined under the Extradition Act, 1962. However, extradition has been defined as: ‘… the surrender by one nation to another of an individual accused or convicted of an offence outside of its own territory, and within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, which, being competent to try and to punish him, demands the surrender.’ But extradition is different from deportation by which competent State authorities order a person to leave a country and prevent him from returning to the same territory. Extradition is also different from exclusion, by which an individual is prohibited from staying in one part of a sovereign State. Both deportation and exclusion basically are nonconsensual exercise whereas extradition is based on a consensual treaty obligation between the requesting State and the requested State.