Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Which of the following is the correct position in law regarding administration of narco-analysis techniques, in the light of the judgment in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263?
1. Compulsory administration constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the context of Article 21.
2. Compulsory administration violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
3. Compulsory administration may, however, be justifiable in compelling public interest in combatting terrorist activities.
4. Information subsequently discovered with the help of voluntarily administered narco-analysis results may be admitted in evidence.
Select the correct answer from the following:

Which of the following is the correct position in law regarding administration of narco-analysis techniques, in the light of the judgment in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263?
1. Compulsory administration constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the context of Article 21.
2. Compulsory administration violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
3. Compulsory administration may, however, be justifiable in compelling public interest in combatting terrorist activities.
4. Information subsequently discovered with the help of voluntarily administered narco-analysis results may be admitted in evidence.
Select the correct answer from the following: Correct Answer 1, 2 and 4 only

Related Questions

Which of the following were relevant considerations for prohibition on sale of liquor along national and state highways in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, (2017) 2 SCC 281?
1. There is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to trade in liquor.
2. Under Article 47, the State is under a duty to raise the level of nutrition, standard of living and improve public health.
3. An exception to permit the sale of liquor along a stretch of the highway which passes through the limits of city is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
4. Right to life under Article 21 signifies a right to live with human dignity, free of noxious substances and intoxicants.
Choose the correct answer from the following:
Which is the correct position in law on an Ordinance promulgated under Article 123 of the Constitution of India, following the judgment in Krishna Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 SCC
1. Power conferred upon the President under Article 123 is legislative in character and the satisfaction of the President is immune from judicial review.
2. An Ordinance promulgated under Article 123 must be laid before the Parliament, which is a mandatory constitutional obligation cast upon the government.
3. An Ordinance promulgated in exercise of powers under Article 123 cannot create enduring rights in favour of individuals
4. Re-promulgation of an Ordinance is a fraud on the Constitution.
Choose the correct answer from the following:
The fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence regarding selfincrimination has been given constitutional status under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It is.
1. A right to refuse brain mapping test.
2. Not a protection against giving specimen signature and thumb impression.
3. A right pertaining to a person who is an eye witness to a crime.
4. A protection to a person against giving evidence against himself.
Select the correct answer:
In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that "any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntarily administered test result can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."?
Narcoanalysis, polygraph test and brain electrical activation profile test conducted against will of the person subjected to such tests, violates his right protected under Article 20(3), and right to personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, was held by the Supreme Court in which of the following cases:
The Supreme Court in Selvi and Others v. State of Kantataka, held that compulsory administration of Narcoanalysis technique amounts to.
Which of the following reasons led to the setting aside of the practice of 'talaqe- biddat', triple talaq in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1?
(1) Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 was a pre-constitutional legislation within the meaning of Article 13(1) and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of arbitrariness.
(2) Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 was a pre-constitutional legislation within the meaning of Article 13(1) and violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India, being discriminatory.
(3) Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 is not a law regulating triple talaq but the practice of triple talaq was against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and no practice against the tenets of Quran was permissible.
(4) 'Talaq-e-biddat' is integral to the religious denomination but the Supreme Court may injunct this practice as a means for severing matrimonial relationship.
Which of the following is correct in respect of 'Right to be Forgotten'?
1. The Karnataka High Court in a landmark judgment recently has accepted, applied and approved the 'Right to be Forgotten' in Indian context.
2. It allows offenders who had served their sentence to object to the publication of information regarding their crime and conviction in order to ease their process of social integration.
3. The origin of this right can be traced back to the French jurisprudence on the 'right to oblivion'.
4. The Right to be Forgotten can be inferred from the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) as well as from the IT Rules, 2011.
Below are given four statements followed by four conclusions. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they appear to be at variance with commonly known facts, and then decide which of conclusions logically follows from the given statements. For each question, mark out an appropriate answer choice that you think is correct. Statements: Some kind are intelligent. Some cruel are kind. All cruel are people. No people is an animal. Conclusions: I. No cruel is an animal. II. Some kind are not an animal. III. Some kind are not intelligent. IV. All animals are intelligent.
Which of the following statements are correct?
1. Lawless v. Ireland was the first case decided by the European Court of Human Rights.
2. Ireland v. United Kingdom is related to Article 3 of European Convention of Human Rights which deals with freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
3. The U. N. Commission on Human Rights was replaced by Human Rights Committee in March 2006 by the General Assembly.
4. The Commission on the Status of Women is a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) established in 1948.
Choose the correct answer: