Showing questions for November 07, 2025
- Total: 20 questions
Question 11 Nov 07, 2025
▼
On what grounds did the Supreme Court reiterate that every arrested person must be given written grounds of arrest?
Article 22(1) of the ConstitutionThe Supreme Court, in a judgment on November 7, 2025, reiterated that Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution mandates that every arrested individual must be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing. This right is fundamental and integral to personal liberty under Article 21. Failure to provide such information renders the arrest unconstitutional. Even in exceptional cases like crimes committed in flagrante delicto, oral communication must be followed by written grounds within a reasonable time—no later than two hours before magistrate remand. The ruling arose from appeals linked to the 2024 Worli BMW crash case.
Question 12 Nov 07, 2025
▼
What did the Delhi High Court direct the Centre to do regarding the Ajmer Sharif Dargah?
Expedite appointment of Dargah Committee members within 3 monthsThe Delhi High Court, on November 7, 2025, directed the Centre to expedite the appointment of members to the Ajmer Sharif Dargah Committee, which has been defunct since 2022. The plea was filed by a khadim (hereditary custodian) concerned about financial irregularities and governance issues in the shrine’s management. The court disposed of the petition after the Centre clarified that CCTV cameras would not be installed inside the sanctum sanctorum, only in public access areas. The bench emphasized the need for a functional committee to restore devotees’ trust. The shrine, dedicated to Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, attracts pilgrims from all faiths.
Question 13 Nov 07, 2025
▼
Why was the Chief Justice of India displeased with the Centre during the hearing on tribunal reforms?
Repeated last-minute adjournment requests despite reserved hearing timeOn November 7, 2025, Chief Justice BR Gavai expressed strong displeasure at the Union Government’s repeated adjournment requests in the tribunal reforms case. The bench had reserved its Friday schedule to conclude hearings and draft judgment over the weekend before the CJI’s retirement on November 23. The Attorney General’s absence due to international arbitration commitments, despite prior accommodations, was seen as undermining judicial time. The CJI questioned why other law officers couldn’t represent the Centre and suspected an attempt to avoid the current bench. The court agreed to hear petitioner arguments on Friday and gave the AG one final chance to appear on Monday.
Question 14 Nov 07, 2025
▼
According to the Supreme Court, within what time frame must written grounds of arrest be provided if initially conveyed orally?
No later than two hours before production before the MagistrateThe Supreme Court clarified on November 7, 2025, that while oral communication of arrest grounds is permissible in exceptional circumstances (e.g., crimes committed in the presence of police), written grounds must follow within a reasonable time. Crucially, this written document must be furnished no later than two hours before the accused is produced before a Magistrate for remand. This timeframe balances the arrestee’s constitutional rights with operational needs of law enforcement. The Court emphasized that written communication ensures verifiability and protects against procedural violations. Mere oral reading of grounds does not satisfy the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1).
Question 15 Nov 07, 2025
▼
What was the central argument of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in allowing the release of the film ‘Haq’?
The film is fictional and inspired by publicly available court recordsThe Madhya Pradesh High Court permitted the release of ‘Haq’ on November 7, 2025, noting that the film includes a clear disclaimer stating it is a fictional dramatization inspired by the Shah Bano Supreme Court judgment and an adaptation of a book. The court rejected the claim that reputational rights are inheritable, holding that such rights extinguish upon death. It emphasized that creative works drawing from public judicial records deserve artistic latitude. The petitioner, Siddiqua Begum Khan, argued commercial exploitation of her mother’s life without consent, but the court found no actionable distortion. The ruling upheld freedom of expression in cinematic storytelling based on historical legal cases.