The correct answer is Option 3 i.e. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985).

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the Right to Livelihood. The Supreme Court held that livelihood is an essential part of life, and depriving a person of it without due process violates Article 21.

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) – Established the Basic Structure Doctrine.

• Maneka Gandhi (1978) – Expanded the scope of personal liberty.

• Minerva Mills (1980) – Strengthened the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

The correct answer is option 1 i.e. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), which specifically targets human trafficking involving women and children in India. It criminalizes activities like solicitation, brothel-keeping, and trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Other options:

1. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Addresses caste-based discrimination and violence, not trafficking.

2. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 – Regulates child labor but does not focus on trafficking.

3. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Deals with domestic abuse, not trafficking.

The correct answer is Option 3 i.e Pedestrian signals.

• The signals that are designed for pedestrians are known as pedestrian signals. In this signal, we can see signs that show the words like 'walk' and 'don't walk' or show a 'walking person' or with a 'raised hand in orange etc. These signs are useful when there is no person to control the traffic.

The correct answer is option 2 i.e. 143.

Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) specifically addresses the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly. It prescribes imprisonment, which may extend to six months, or a fine, or both. An unlawful assembly, as defined in Section 141, involves five or more people with a common objective to commit certain illegal acts. Section 143 provides the legal consequence for participating in such assemblies, aiming to maintain public order and prevent disturbances.

The correct answer is option 4 i.e. 1860.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the official criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The Indian Penal Code is Act number 45 of the year 1860. The objective of IPC was to implement the same criminal law across the country so that there are no inconsistencies.

The correct answer is option 1 i.e. Section 300.

• Section 300 of Indian Penal Code gives the defination of murder.
• Section 299 deals with 'Culpable Homicide'. We should not confuse between the two.
• All murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. Culpable Homicide is genus and murder is its species.
• If the accused intentionally exceeds his right to private defense, then he is liable to murder. If it is unintentional, then the accused will be liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The correct answer is Option 2 i.e IPC section 5.

• The IPC Section 5 deals with the laws and provisions of codes which will not be applicable to the categories having already existing laws to deal with respective matters.
• Section 5 says that nothing in this act will affect the provisions of any act for the punishment of mutiny and desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen serving in the government service.

The correct answer is Option 2 i.e. a-iii, b-iv, c-i, d-ii.

• The above following cases are important supreme court judgments in the constitution of the country.
• Golaknath case took place in 1967, which questioned whether an amendment is a law and also questioned whether Fundamental rights can be amended or not.
• Shankari Prasad case of 1951 deals with the amendability of fundamental rights.
• Kesavanda Bharti case of 1973 helped in defending the basic structure of the constitution.
• Manekha Gandhi case of 1978 questions whether the right to travel or go abroad falls under the Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21.

The correct answer is option 3 i.e. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma.

• In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma case judgement, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005  confers the status of coparcener on daughters born before or after amendment in the same manner as sons, with the same rights and liabilities.
• It also held that since the coparcener right is by birth, it is not mandatory that the father coparcener should be living as on November 9, 2005, when the amended provision came into force.
• As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any individual born in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) becomes a coparcener by birth.

The correct answer is option 2 i.e. Kesavananda Bharati case.

• In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme court held that the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment"