UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Bombay HC refuses to quash summons against Rahul
Q1. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, after defining the offence, enumerates a set of Exceptions under which an imputation does not amount to the offence. How many such Exceptions are enumerated?
- A. Seven
- B. Eight
- C. Ten
- D. Twelve
Q2. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by which one of the following means is a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code ordinarily set in motion?
- A. A first information report registered by the officer in charge of the police station within whose jurisdiction the imputation was published
- B. A complaint made to a court by a person aggrieved by the offence, on which the court alone may take cognizance
- C. A reference made by the Public Prosecutor of the State to the Court of Session having territorial jurisdiction
- D. A sanction accorded by the appropriate Government, followed by an investigation conducted by a police officer
Q3. Consider the following statements comparing the provisions invoked in the Rahul Gandhi defamation proceedings with their counterparts in the new criminal laws:
1. The saving of the inherent powers of the High Court, contained in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appears as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 repeals and replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The offence of defamation, punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponds to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- The saving of the inherent powers of the High Court, contained in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appears as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 repeals and replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The offence of defamation, punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponds to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- A. 1 and 2 only
- B. 2 and 3 only
- C. 1 and 3 only
- D. 1, 2 and 3
Q4. With reference to the Bombay High Court's order of 8 September 2026 on the petition to quash the criminal defamation summons issued to the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, consider the following:
1. The petition was decided by a single-judge Bench of Justice N.R. Borkar.
2. The summons under challenge had been issued in 2019 by a Metropolitan Magistrate's court at Girgaon, Mumbai.
3. While dismissing the petition, the Court continued its 2021 direction deferring the hearing before the magistrate for six weeks.
4. The Court accepted the contention that a registered national political party is not a determinate and identifiable body capable of being defamed.
Which of the above is/are correctly identified?
- The petition was decided by a single-judge Bench of Justice N.R. Borkar.
- The summons under challenge had been issued in 2019 by a Metropolitan Magistrate's court at Girgaon, Mumbai.
- While dismissing the petition, the Court continued its 2021 direction deferring the hearing before the magistrate for six weeks.
- The Court accepted the contention that a registered national political party is not a determinate and identifiable body capable of being defamed.
- A. 1 and 3 only
- B. 2 and 4 only
- C. 1, 2 and 3 only
- D. 1, 2, 3 and 4
Q5. While declining to quash the summons in September 2026, the Bombay High Court kept in force an earlier interim direction deferring the hearing before the magistrate, so as to enable recourse to the Supreme Court. For what period was that hearing deferred?
- A. Four weeks
- B. Six weeks
- C. Eight weeks
- D. Twelve weeks
Q6. Under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, the expression 'Leader of the Opposition' in relation to a House of Parliament means which one of the following?
- A. The leader in that House of the largest party in opposition which has secured not less than one-tenth of the total membership of the House, recognised as such by the President
- B. The leader of the single largest party in that House other than the party of the Prime Minister, elected as such by the members of all opposition parties in that House
- C. The member who is the leader in that House of the party in opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength, recognised as such by the Chairman or the Speaker
- D. The leader in that House of the pre-poll alliance of opposition parties having the greatest numerical strength, nominated as such by the Election Commission of India
Q7. A sitting member of the Lok Sabha, including one recognised as Leader of the Opposition, who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years stands disqualified from the date of such conviction and for a further six years since release. This consequence flows from which one of the following provisions?
- A. Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution read with the Tenth Schedule
- B. Section 11A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950
- C. Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
- D. Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Q8. Which one of the following is the leading Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutional validity of the penal provisions on defamation against a challenge founded on Article 19(1)(a)?
- A. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
- B. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
- C. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
- D. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Q9. Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code have been held by the Supreme Court to be a permissible curtailment of the freedom of speech and expression, being saved by which one of the following constitutional provisions?
- A. Clause (2) of Article 19
- B. Clause (4) of Article 19
- C. Clause (6) of Article 19
- D. Clause (2) of Article 22
Q10. Consider the following statements distinguishing the 2023 'Modi surname' defamation case from the proceedings decided by the Bombay High Court in September 2026:
1. The complaint in the 2023 case was filed by a Bharatiya Janata Party legislator before a Metropolitan Magistrate's court at Surat, Gujarat.
2. In the 2023 case a sentence of two years' imprisonment was imposed, attracting disqualification from the Lok Sabha, and the membership was restored later that year after the Supreme Court stayed the conviction.
3. The remarks that gave rise to the proceedings decided by the Bombay High Court in 2026 were made at a rally in Kolar, Karnataka.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- The complaint in the 2023 case was filed by a Bharatiya Janata Party legislator before a Metropolitan Magistrate's court at Surat, Gujarat.
- In the 2023 case a sentence of two years' imprisonment was imposed, attracting disqualification from the Lok Sabha, and the membership was restored later that year after the Supreme Court stayed the conviction.
- The remarks that gave rise to the proceedings decided by the Bombay High Court in 2026 were made at a rally in Kolar, Karnataka.
- A. 1 and 2 only
- B. 1 and 3 only
- C. 2 and 3 only
- D. 1, 2 and 3
Q11. In the procedure governing a private complaint of defamation, the expression 'postponement of the issue of process', used in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, refers to which one of the following?
- A. The Magistrate deferring the trial until the complainant furnishes security for the costs that the accused may incur in entering appearance
- B. The Magistrate deferring the recording upon oath of the complainant's statement until the accused has entered appearance before the court
- C. The Magistrate deferring the framing of a formal charge until a report on the complaint has been submitted to the court by the police
- D. The Magistrate deferring the summoning of the accused in order to inquire into the case himself, or to direct an investigation, to decide whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding