Segment 5: MCQs (61–80)
- What is the limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971?
a) 3 months
b) 6 months
c) 1 year
d) 2 years
[read more] Answer: b) 6 months
Explanation: Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, prescribes a limitation period of 6 months from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. [/read]
- Which section of the Contempt of Court Act provides immunity for certain publications?
a) Section 4
b) Section 5
c) Section 10
d) Section 12
[read more] Answer: b) Section 5
Explanation: Section 5 protects certain publications from being considered contempt if they are made in good faith and do not prejudice pending judicial proceedings. [/read]
- Which of the following is not considered “civil contempt” under the Act?
a) Failure to obey a court order
b) Breach of an undertaking given to a court
c) Public criticism of a court judgment
d) Non-compliance with a legal directive
[read more] Answer: c) Public criticism of a court judgment
Explanation: Public criticism of a judgment falls under criminal contempt if it scandalizes the court. Civil contempt pertains to disobedience of court orders or undertakings. [Section 2(b).] [/read]
- In which case did the Supreme Court rule that truth can be used as a defense only if it is in public interest?
a) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
b) Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie
c) E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar
d) In Re: Arundhati Roy
[read more] Answer: b) Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie
Explanation: In this case, the Court held that truth as a defense is valid if it is in public interest and made in good faith. [Section 13 of the Act.] [/read]
- Under Section 15, who can bring a motion for criminal contempt in the Supreme Court?
a) Any private citizen
b) The Attorney General or Solicitor General
c) Any journalist
d) The Chief Justice of India only
[read more] Answer: b) The Attorney General or Solicitor General
Explanation: Section 15 requires the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court. [/read]
- Which provision allows for the defense of an apology in contempt proceedings?
a) Section 10
b) Section 12
c) Section 13
d) Section 20
[read more] Answer: c) Section 13
Explanation: An apology tendered in good faith can serve as a defense under Section 13 of the Act, provided it is sincere and not merely a tactic to escape liability. [/read]
- The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, categorizes contempt into which of the following types?
a) Civil and criminal
b) General and specific
c) Direct and indirect
d) Statutory and non-statutory
[read more] Answer: a) Civil and criminal
Explanation: Section 2 of the Act classifies contempt as civil (disobedience of court orders) and criminal (scandalizing the court or obstructing justice). [/read]
- What is the punishment for contempt of court as per Section 12 of the Act?
a) 1 month imprisonment or a fine of ₹1,000
b) 3 months imprisonment or a fine of ₹2,000
c) 6 months imprisonment or a fine of ₹2,000
d) 1-year imprisonment or a fine of ₹5,000
[read more] Answer: c) 6 months imprisonment or a fine of ₹2,000
Explanation: Section 12 provides for imprisonment up to 6 months, a fine of ₹2,000, or both for contempt of court. [/read]
- Which landmark case defined the parameters of fair criticism in contempt cases?
a) C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta
b) E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar
c) Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie
d) Arundhati Roy v. Union of India
[read more] Answer: a) C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta
Explanation: The Court held that fair criticism of judicial acts in good faith is permissible as long as it does not undermine public confidence in the judiciary. [/read]
- In which case did the Supreme Court state that a bona fide criticism of a judgment is permissible?
a) E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar
b) Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie
c) K.K. Verma v. State of Bihar
d) C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta
[read more] Answer: b) Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie
Explanation: The Court ruled that bona fide criticism made in good faith is not contempt if it respects the dignity of the judiciary. [/read]
- Under Section 10, which courts have the power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts?
a) District courts
b) High Courts
c) Supreme Court
d) Magistrate courts
[read more] Answer: b) High Courts
Explanation: Section 10 empowers High Courts to take action for contempt of subordinate courts within their jurisdiction. [/read]
- Which of the following is an example of “criminal contempt”?
a) Willful disobedience of a court order
b) Publishing prejudicial opinions on a pending case
c) Refusing to testify as a witness
d) Breaching a private contract
[read more] Answer: b) Publishing prejudicial opinions on a pending case
Explanation: Criminal contempt includes actions that interfere with the administration of justice or prejudice ongoing proceedings. [Section 2(c).] [/read]
- What must be proven to establish a defense of good faith under the Contempt of Court Act?
a) The statement was factual
b) The statement was made without malice and in public interest
c) The statement was made in a private capacity
d) The statement was withdrawn after publication
[read more] Answer: b) The statement was made without malice and in public interest
Explanation: Section 13 specifies that good faith and public interest are essential elements for the defense of truth in contempt cases. [/read]
- Which case clarified that even judges are subject to accountability and fair criticism?
a) Arundhati Roy v. Union of India
b) Re Harijai Singh
c) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
d) In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra
[read more] Answer: c) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
Explanation: This case emphasized the principle of accountability while maintaining judicial dignity, permitting fair criticism. [/read]
- Which of the following is not a defense against a contempt charge?
a) Public interest
b) Fair criticism
c) Bona fide apology
d) Ignorance of the law
[read more] Answer: d) Ignorance of the law
Explanation: Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for contempt as per the legal maxim ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one). [/read]
- In which case did the Supreme Court state that the power of contempt should be used sparingly?
a) Arundhati Roy v. Union of India
b) Re Harijai Singh
c) E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar
d) Balogh v. Crown Court
[read more] Answer: d) Balogh v. Crown Court
Explanation: The Court emphasized that contempt power should not be used as a tool of oppression and must be exercised judiciously. [/read]