Q1. Which of the following is not a valid ground for property to vest in the state under Article 296?
- Escheat
- Bona vacantia
- Acquisition through eminent domain
- Lapse
Correct Option: 3. Acquisition through eminent domain.
Explanation: Article 296 covers escheat, lapse, and bona vacantia. Acquisition through eminent domain is governed under Article 300-A (not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution originally) and is based on legislative authority, not absence of ownership.
Q2. Which of the following best describes the legal status of the Union and the States under Article 300?
- They are moral entities.
- They are juristic persons capable of suing and being sued.
- They are constitutional entities with limited responsibility.
- They are immune from all civil litigation.
Correct Option: 2. They are juristic persons capable of suing and being sued..
Explanation: Article 300 provides that the Union and states have legal identity and can sue or be sued by their respective names — “Union of India” and “State of X”.
Q3. Which of the following cases reaffirmed the non-liability of the State in sovereign functions despite its injustice to the citizen?
- Nagendra Rao v. State
- Common Cause v. Union of India
- Kasturilal v. State of UP
- Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Correct Option: 3. Kasturilal v. State of UP
Explanation: In Kasturilal (1965), the Supreme Court upheld sovereign immunity, holding the state not liable for wrongful acts by police officials in sovereign functions.
Q4. In the absence of compliance with Article 299(1), a government contract is:
- Voidable at the discretion of the government
- Void ab initio and unenforceable
- Valid if it serves public interest
- Subject to ratification by the Parliament
Correct Option: 2. Void ab initio and unenforceable
Explanation: Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements of Article 299(1) (like contract being in the name of the President/Governor) renders the contract void from the beginning.
Q5. The doctrine of sovereign immunity in India primarily traces its origin to which legal tradition?
- Indian Customary Law
- French Administrative Law
- American Federalism
- British Common Law
Correct Option: 4. British Common Law
Explanation: The doctrine is derived from the British principle that “The King can do no wrong.” This was imported into Indian law during the East India Company period and reaffirmed in P&O Steam Navigation case.