One app for all your study abroad needs
Legal Reasoning Questions are a very important part of the CLAT syllabus. In this section it is checked whether you can understand complex legal laws, focus on key details and conclude rational decisions. Though previous knowledge of law is not required this section what is required is awareness of legal terms. Also, it is required to identify key rules and principles and then assume if changing rules could impact particular scenarios. This article covers most commonly asked legal reasoning questions in the CLAT exam.
So which kinds of Legal Reasoning Questions are asked in the CLAT? Principle- and fact-based comprehension questions make up Legal aptitude Questions. A section containing a legal proposition (principle) and a collection of facts that the proposition (principle) must be applied to are presented to you.
Table of Contents
Practice MCQ Format Legal Reasoning Questions
What is the purpose of bail in the criminal justice system?
(a) To punish the accused before trial
(b) To ensure the accused remains in custody indefinitely
(c) To guarantee the accused’s appearance in court for trial
(d) To absolve the accused of all charges
Answer: (c) To guarantee the accused’s appearance in court for trial
What is the legal term for a written order issued by a court to prevent a person from carrying out a specific action?
(a) Warrant
(b) Subpoena
(c) Injunction
(d) Summons
Answer: (c) Injunction
Under which legal principle are individuals presumed innocent until proven guilty?
(a) Presumption of innocence
(b) Burden of proof
(c) Due process
(d) Habeas corpus
Answer: (a) Presumption of innocence
What is the primary function of the judiciary in a democratic society?
(a) To make laws
(b) To enforce laws
(c) To interpret laws
(d) To amend laws
Answer: (c) To interpret laws
What is the legal term for a formal accusation of a serious crime?
(a) Misdemeanor
(b) Felony
(c) Indictment
(d) Arrest warrant
Answer: (c) Indictment
Which branch of government is responsible for creating laws?
(a) Executive
(b) Legislative
(c) Judicial
(d) Administrative
Answer: (b) Legislative
What is the primary purpose of the Constitution?
(a) To establish a system of government
(b) To protect individual rights
(c) To outline the structure of the judiciary
(d) To specify the duties of the president
Answer: (a) To establish a system of government
What legal principle dictates that similar cases should be decided similarly?
(a) Stare decisis
(b) Habeas corpus
(c) Mens rea
(d) Actus reus
Answer: (a) Stare decisis
What is the term for a legal dispute between two or more parties that is brought before a court for resolution?
(a) Lawsuit
(b) Arbitration
(c) Mediation
(d) Negotiation
Answer: (a) Lawsuit
Which legal doctrine allows courts to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions?
(a) Judicial review
(b) Due process
(c) Equal protection
(d) Separation of powers
Answer: (a) Judicial review
Practice Passage Based Legal Reasoning Questions
Passage 1
The Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., commonly known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, is a landmark case in Indian legal history. This case is very important for establishing the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution, which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Firstly, let’s understand the background of the case. In 1970, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Matha monastery in Kerala, challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the management of its property. This led to a lengthy legal battle that ended in a decision by a 13-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court.
Now, let’s understand the major complications of the judgment. The Supreme Court, in a 7-6 decision, asserted to strike down amendments to the Constitution that violated its basic structure. This doctrine explains that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental framework or core principles.
The majority judgment, led by Chief Justice S M Sikri, emphasized the importance of preserving individual freedoms written in the Constitution’s fundamental rights. It held that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it couldn’t do so in a manner that destroys or damages its basic structure. This includes elements such as justice, freedom of expression, and equality.
Furthermore, the judgment outlined the concept of “reasonable abridgment” of fundamental rights in the public interest. This means that while certain restrictions on fundamental rights may be permissible for the greater good, they cannot undermine the essence of these rights.
The dissenting judges, on the other hand, argued for a broader interpretation of Parliament’s amending power, suggesting that it should not be constrained by limitations on altering the Constitution’s structure.
Overall, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment laid down an important precedent for constitutional law in India. It established the principle that the Constitution is not a mere document but a living framework containing certain inviolable principles. This decision continues to shape the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature, ensuring that the essence of India’s constitutional democracy remains intact.
Q1: What was the central issue in the Kesavananda Bharati case?
A1: The central issue in the Kesavananda Bharati case was the challenge against the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the management of religiously owned property, brought forward by Swami Kesavananda Bharati.
Q2: How did the Supreme Court rule regarding the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution?
A2: The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental framework or core principles. This decision laid down the basic structure doctrine, limiting the scope of Parliament’s amending power.
Q3: Who were the dissenting judges in the Kesavananda Bharati case, and what was their argument?
A3: The dissenting judges in the Kesavananda Bharati case were A. N. Ray, K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg, and S. N. Dwivedi. They argued for a broader interpretation of Parliament’s amending power, suggesting that it should not be constrained by limitations on altering the Constitution’s structure.
Q4: What is the significance of the basic structure doctrine established in this case?
A4: The basic structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case is significant as it limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, ensuring that the core principles and framework of the Constitution remain intact. This doctrine serves as a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.
Q5: What role did Chief Justice S M Sikri play in the majority judgment?
A5: Chief Justice S M Sikri played an important role in the majority judgment by emphasizing the importance of preserving individual freedoms enshrined in the Constitution’s fundamental rights. He asserted that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it couldn’t do so in a manner that destroys or damages its basic structure.
Q6: How did the judgment address the concept of “reasonable abridgment” of fundamental rights?
A6: The judgment addressed the concept of “reasonable abridgment” of fundamental rights by acknowledging that while certain restrictions on fundamental rights may be permissible for the greater good, they cannot undermine the essence of these rights.
Q7: What was the background of the petitioner, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, in the case?
A7: Swami Kesavananda Bharati was the petitioner in the case, serving as the head of the Edneer Matha monastery in Kerala. He challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the management of its property, leading to the landmark legal battle.
Q8: How did the government of Indira Gandhi respond to the Kesavananda Bharati judgment?
A8: The government of Indira Gandhi was not in favor of the restriction on its powers by the court. This led to unprecedented actions, such as the promotion of Justice Ajit Nath Ray to Chief Justice of India, superseding three senior judges. Additionally, the 42nd Amendment, enacted in 1976, is considered a direct response to the judgment.
Passage 2
The legal landscape surrounding euthanasia in India has seen considerable evolution, particularly in distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia. While active euthanasia, involving the administration of lethal compounds, remains illegal in India, passive euthanasia, which involves the withholding or withdrawal of life support, has been legalized under specific circumstances.
This shift in policy can be traced back to landmark cases and judgments, notably the Aruna Shanbaug case in 2011. Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, remained in a vegetative state for 42 years following a brutal assault. Despite pleas to discontinue life support, the Supreme Court’s decision in 2011 legalized passive euthanasia, recognizing the right to withdraw treatment or food under certain conditions.
Further legal developments occurred in the Common Cause v Union of India case in 2018, where the Supreme Court clarified the legality of advance medical directives or “living wills” for consenting patients in terminal illness or vegetative states. This judgment streamlined the process for preparing these directives, enhancing patient autonomy and dignity in end-of-life decisions.
The Supreme Court’s stance on euthanasia, while permitting passive euthanasia, has consistently rejected active euthanasia, affirming that its decisions constitute the law of the land until legislative action is taken. This approach reflects a balance between respecting individual autonomy and safeguarding against potential exploitation, particularly in a country with diverse socioeconomic dynamics.
Religious perspectives vary, with some groups accepting passive euthanasia under certain conditions, while others remain generally opposed. Traditional practices such as Santhara and Prayopavesa in Jainism and Hinduism respectively add complexity to the ethical discourse surrounding end-of-life care.
Concerns have been raised regarding the practical implementation of euthanasia in India, citing challenges such as weak rule of law and socioeconomic disparities. Skepticism persists within the medical community, highlighting the need for robust safeguards to prevent potential abuse.
Overall, the legal framework governing euthanasia in India reflects a nuanced understanding of ethical, religious, and practical considerations, emphasizing the importance of individual rights balanced with societal interests and protections.
What types of euthanasia are distinguished in India’s legal framework?
India’s legal framework distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia.
Which forms of euthanasia are legal in India under specific circumstances?
Passive euthanasia, which involves the withholding or withdrawal of life support, is legal in India under specific circumstances such as terminal illness or vegetative state.
What landmark case paved the way for the legalization of passive euthanasia in India?
The Aruna Shanbaug case in 2011 played an important role in legalizing passive euthanasia in India.
Who was Aruna Shanbaug, and what was her impact on India’s euthanasia laws?
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 42 years following a brutal assault. Her case led to the legalization of passive euthanasia in India.
What role did the Supreme Court play in the Common Cause v Union of India case regarding euthanasia?
In the Common Cause v Union of India case, the Supreme Court clarified the legality of advance medical directives or “living wills” for consenting patients in terminal illness or vegetative states.
What religious perspectives exist on euthanasia in India?
Religious perspectives on euthanasia vary, with some groups accepting passive euthanasia under certain conditions while others remain generally opposed.
What concerns have been raised regarding the implementation of euthanasia in India?
Concerns have been raised regarding the practical implementation of euthanasia in India, citing challenges such as weak rule of law and socioeconomic disparities.
What stance has the Supreme Court taken regarding active euthanasia in India?
The Supreme Court has consistently rejected active euthanasia in India, affirming that its decisions constitute the law of the land until legislative action is taken.
Related Posts
This was all about the “Legal Reasoning Questions”. For more such informative blogs, check out our Study Material Section, or you can learn more about us by visiting our Indian exams page.