Full-length Mock Paper for CLAT 2025 with Answers

This question paper contains 100 questions with answers for CLAT 2025. Attempt these questions and test your preparation today!

A) 37 years
B) 36 years
C) 38 years
D) 40 years

A) 7:15
B) 15:7
C) 4:7
D) 7:4

A) 15%
B) 20%
C) 25%
D) 30%

A) 60 km/hr
B) 50 km/hr
C) 40 km/hr
D) 45 km/hr

A) 15 kg
B) 17 kg
C) 18 kg
D) 20 kg

A) 15 years
B) 20 years
C) 30 years
D) 35 years

A) 10% increase
B) 8% increase
C) 2% increase
D) 2% decrease

A) 2 hours
B) 4 hours
C) 3 hours
D) 5 hours

A) 50
B) 75
C) 100
D) 150

A) 6:5
B) 2:7
C) 3:5
D) 1:4

A) 10%
B) 20%
C) 25%
D) 30%

A) 1/4 hours
B) 1/2 hours
C) 3/4 hours
D) 1 hour

A) 6 hours
B) 7 hours
C) 4 hours
D) 9 hours

A) 5% increase
B) 5% decrease
C) 2% increase
D) 4% decrease

A) 30 days
B) 32 days
C) 36 days
D) 40 days

A) 15
B) 20
C) 25
D) 30

A) 3 hours
B) 4 hours
C) 5 hours
D) 6 hours

A) 5% increase
B) 5% decrease
C) 4% increase
D) 4% decrease

A) 32 days
B) 35 days
C) 40 days
D) 45 days

A) 3:4
B) 4:3
C) 4:5
D) 5:4

Each set of questions in this section is based on a single passage. Please answer each question based on what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. In some instances, more than one option may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.

The sun dipped below the horizon, casting a warm golden glow across the tranquil meadow. The gentle rustling of leaves in the breeze created a soothing melody, while the fragrance of wildflowers filled the air. As the stars began to twinkle in the darkening sky, a sense of peace settled over the landscape, wrapping everything in a serene embrace.

A) Simile
B) Metaphor
C) Hyperbole
D) Personification

A) Chaotic
B) Peaceful
C) Energetic
D) Noisy

A) Calming
B) Disturbing
C) Relaxing
D) Pleasant

The old castle stood atop the rugged hill, its ancient stones weathered by centuries of wind and rain. Moss and ivy clung to its walls, adding to its aura of timelessness. A narrow pathway led up to the heavy wooden doors, which creaked eerily as they opened, revealing the grandeur within. Dust danced in the air as sunlight streamed through stained glass windows, painting the floor with a kaleidoscope of colors. The castle’s history whispered through the halls, carrying tales of kings and queens, celebrations and battles, now all but echoes etched into the very stone.

A) Metaphor
B) Personification
C) Simile
D) Hyperbole

A) Contemporary
B) Modern
C) Recent
D) Olden

A) Magnificence
B) Simplicity
C) Elegance
D) Opulence

A) Metaphor
B) Simile
C) Personification
D) Hyperbole

A) Scent
B) Atmosphere
C) Light
D) Wind

The ship sailed gently across the vast expanse of the tranquil ocean, its white sails billowing in the breeze like the outstretched wings of a seabird in flight. The crew worked in harmony, their synchronized movements a testament to their years of shared voyages. The captain stood at the helm, his weathered hands expertly guiding the vessel through the calm waters. As the sun dipped toward the horizon, casting hues of orange and pink across the sky, the sailors felt a sense of camaraderie that only the open sea could bestow.

A) Turbulent
B) Serene
C) Chaotic
D) Unsettled

A) Solitude
B) Isolation
C) Friendship
D) Strife

Lore has it my father once wrestled a black bear in Baluchistan with his bare hands [3]. If the story had been about anyone else, it would have been dismissed as _laaf_, that Afghan tendency to exaggerate–sadly, almost a national affliction; if someone bragged that his son was a doctor, chances were the kid had once passed a biology test in high school. But no one ever doubted the veracity of any story about Baba.

And if they did, well, Baba did have those three parallel scars coursing a jagged path down his back. I have imagined Baba’s wrestling match countless times, even dreamed about it. And in those dreams, I can never tell Baba from the bear. It was Rahim Khan who first referred to him as what eventually became Baba’s famous nickname, _Toophan agha_, or “Mr. Hurricane.”

It was an apt enough nickname. My father was a force of nature, a towering Pashtun specimen with a thick beard, a wayward crop of curly brown hair as unruly as [2] the man himself, hands that looked capable of uprooting a willow tree, and a black glare that would “drop the devil to his knees begging for mercy,” as Rahim Khan used to say.

At parties, when all six-foot-five of him thundered into the room, attention shifted to him like sunflowers turning [1] the sun. Baba was impossible to ignore, even in his sleep. I used to bury cotton wisps in my ears, pull the blanket over my head, and still the sounds of Baba’s snoring– so much like a growling truck engine–penetrated the walls.

And my room was across the hall from Baba’s bedroom. How my mother ever managed to sleep in the same room as him is a mystery to me. It’s on the long list of things I would have asked my mother if I had ever met her.

In the late 1960s, when I was five or six, Baba decided to build an orphanage. I heard the story through Rahim Khan. He told me Baba had drawn the blueprints himself despite the fact that he’d had no architectural experience at all. Skeptics had urged him to stop his foolishness and hire an architect.

Of course, Baba refused, and everyone shook their heads in dismay at his obstinate ways. Then Baba succeeded and everyone shook their heads in awe at his triumphant ways. Baba paid for the construction of the two-story orphanage, just off the main strip of Jadeh Maywand south of the Kabul River, with his own money. Rahim Khan told me Baba had personally funded the entire project, paying for the engineers, electricians, plumbers, and laborers, not to mention the city officials whose “mustaches needed oiling.”

A) nostalgic
B) dejected
C) elated
D) perplexed

A) understate
B) speak a lot
C) speak falsely
D) aggrandize

A) Toophan Agha
B) Baba
C) Rahim Khan
D) Amir

A) awe
B) pride
C) hatred
D) Indifference

A) to
B) away from
C) for
D) into

A) knowledge
B) story of caution
C) history
D) myth

A) metaphor
B) oxymoron
C) simile
D) pun

A) hyperbole
B) metaphor
C) euphemism
D) personification

A) accuracy
B) exactness
C) falsity
D) non-reliable

A) He had an overwhelming personality
B) He was constantly talking about himself
C) People found his claims untrue
D) He was tall as a person

A) 240 degrees
B) 60 degrees
C) 90 degrees
D) 120 degrees

A) Friday
B) Saturday
C) Sunday
D) Monday

A) Monday
B) Tuesday
C) Wednesday
D) Thursday

A) 130 degrees
B) 150 degrees
C) 160 degrees
D) 180 degrees

A) 11
B) 12
C) 22
D) 24

A) Friday
B) Saturday
C) Sunday
D) Monday

A) 4:10 PM
B) 4:00 PM
C) 4:20 PM
D) 4:30 PM

A) Wednesday
B) Thursday
C) Friday
D) Saturday

A) 78
B) 156
C) 158
D) 164

A) Monday
B) Tuesday
C) Wednesday
D) Thursday

A) Father
B) Mother
C) Grandfather
D) Uncle

A) Father
B) Mother
C) Brother
D) Sister

A) Sister-in-law
B) Wife
C) Mother
D) Daughter

A) Father
B) Mother
C) Brother
D) Son-in-law

A) Sunday
B) Monday
C) Tuesday
D) Wednesday

A) Saturday
B) Sunday
C) Monday
D) Tuesday

A) Tuesday
B) Wednesday
C) Thursday
D) Friday

A) 30 degrees
B) 45 degrees
C) 60 degrees
D) 90 degrees

A) Monday
B) Tuesday
C) Wednesday
D) Thursday

A) Father
B) Mother
C) Brother
D) Son-in-law

At the ‘International Council for Bird Preservation’ conference held in Tokyo in 1960, it was decided that each country should designate a ‘National Bird’.[1], the ‘Birdman of India’, recommended the [2] (Ardeotis nigriceps or GIB) as the ‘National Bird’ of India. Ali’s fervent hope was that such recognition would lead to an urgent nationwide effort to save the endangered bird from impending doom. This sound advice was not taken; some said that its name could be misconstrued. The peacock (Pavo cristatus) was declared the National Bird in 1963. The graceful GIB lost to the more numerous and colorful peafowl.

On March 21, 2024, this critically endangered bird – numbering less than 150 individuals – has provoked the Supreme Court to expand citizens’ constitutional right to life and equality to include the right to be free from the adverse impact of climate change. The public interest litigation filed by eminent conservationist Dr M.K. Ranjitsinh sought a series of directions to protect the GIB from extinction. In 2021, the Supreme Court passed directions restricting and regulating power lines and renewable energy projects in an area of 99,000 sq km in the states of Rajasthan and Gujarat, in order to protect the GIB.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling on the protection and conservation of the GIB (M.K Ranjitsinh Versus Union of India), while modifying directions passed in the earlier judgment, has implications beyond the facts of the case. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud – writing for a three-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra – in his characteristic eloquent style, has expanded the contours of environmental jurisprudence: from the oft-repeated polluter pay principle–precautionary principle–public trust doctrine to the larger arena of climate justice, environmental inequity and gender justice.

For long, environmental disputes have been looked at from the narrow prism of an ‘environment versus development’ debate; in the latest judgment, the court went beyond this binary and sought to address some of the contentious issues from both constitutional and international legal perspective and principles. While there are concerns about the over-emphasis on the benefits of renewable energy in the judgment, in many ways it is precedent setting – nationally as well as globally – and is likely to an effective tool for securing environmental justice in a world that is becoming increasingly hotter and drier. Some of the key elements of the judgment require a deeper analysis.

A) Dr. Salim Ali
B) V.S. Vijayan
C) Charan Singh
D) Birbal Sahani

Great Indian Bustard
Lesser Florican
Great Hornbill
Red-headed vulture

A) Paris Agreement
B) Kyoto Protocol
C) Copenhagen Accord
D) Montreal Protocol

A) Sea-level rise
B) Increased biodiversity
C) Extreme weather events
D) Food insecurity

A) Right to privacy
B) Right to education
C) Right to health
D) Right to property

A) Environmental conservation only benefits developed countries
B) The burden of climate change should fall on vulnerable communities
C) All countries should contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
D) Climate action should prioritize economic growth over sustainability

A) Climate resilience
B) Climate mitigation
C) Climate litigation
D) Climate adaptation

A) Common but differentiated responsibilities
B) Precautionary principle
C) Polluter pays principle
D) Sustainable development principle

A) Sovereign immunity doctrine
B) Public domain doctrine
C) Public Trust Doctrine
D) Eminent domain doctrine

A) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
B) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
C) World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
D) Green Climate Fund (GCF)

As the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on Thursday (April 18) on a batch of pleas seeking complete cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs, experts have questioned some of the arguments put forward in court, pointing out that several pertinent suggestions were overlooked and facetious issues discussed instead.

The crux of the argument is end-to-end verifiability, by which the voter can verify whether the VVPAT slip has the name of the candidate of her choice and put the slip in a box.

[1] is a suggestion given by a body of experts from across the globe in a report prepared by the [2]. The ….. is an intervenor in the SC case and was initially represented by [3].

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta wanted to know whether the voter could be given the slip to put in a box, an action that would ensure that the voter has verified their vote.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), however, told the court that the secrecy of the vote would be lost if the slip was to be given in the hands of the voter to put in the box.

The ECI also said, “One doesn’t know what the voter would do with the slip after taking it. There could also be deliberate mischief.”

CCE convenor and retired IAS officer M.G. Devasahayam, who is one of the intervenors in the case, told The Wire this was a facetious argument.

“Why would a voter who has come to cast his vote actually put the slip in his pocket and walk off, and how can the secrecy be violated? Take the recent case of Chandigarh. It was a government official doing the mischief, not the voter,” he said.

Lawyer Aljo Joseph says end-to-end verifiability is possible without disturbing the existing setup.

End-to-end verification
Cross verification
Double authentication
Solo Representation

A) Election Commission of India (ECI)
B) Citizens’ Commission on Elections (CCE)
C) Supreme Court of India
D) National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog)

A) Ensuring complete secrecy of the vote
B) Allowing voters to verify their votes using VVPAT slips
C) Speeding up the election process
D) Eliminating the need for EVMs

A) Kapil Sibal
B) M.G. Devasahayam
C) Aljo Joseph
D) Dipankar Datta

A) It would speed up the voting process
B) It would enhance voter confidence
C) It would compromise the secrecy of the vote
D) It would ensure end-to-end verifiability

A) Voters
B) Government officials
C) Election Commission of India (ECI)
D) Supreme Court of India

A) It should be implemented without any changes to the existing setup
B) It should be abolished due to its potential risks
C) It should be implemented only in certain regions of India
D) It should be implemented alongside new technology

A) President of India
B) Prime Minister of India
C) Chief Justice of India
D) Election Commission of India (ECI)

A) Biometric verification
B) Cross-verification
C) Parallel counting
D) Digital auditing

A) It ensures the security of EVMs during transportation
B) It allows voters to verify that their vote has been cast correctly
C) It counts the votes electronically to speed up the election process
D) It serves as a backup in case of EVM malfunction

Appearing for the Delhi Police on Tuesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he had no objection to the release of Jamia Millia Islamia student Safoora Zargar on “humanitarian grounds”. The 27-year-old was arrested by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell in April and charged under the draconian UAPA for her alleged role in the communal violence in Northeast Delhi in February.

In her bail plea, Zargar listed pregnancy as one of the grounds for seeking relief. Following the SG’s submission, the Delhi High Court granted her bail. But the 27-year-old’s more than two-month-old ordeal—she was denied bail twice by sessions courts in Delhi—raises fundamental jurisprudential questions.

Why was the cardinal principle of criminal justice, “presumption of innocence until proven guilty”—enshrined in Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and invoked by the Indian judiciary in a number of cases—not applied in this case? Why should an accused be compelled to seek bail on humanitarian grounds? Does the Constitution offer protection against prolonged imprisonment to an undertrial?

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define bail. But in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. the Supreme Court underlined, “The act of arrest directly affects freedom of movement of the person arrested by the police, and speaking generally, an order of bail gives back to the accused that freedom on condition that he will appear to take his trial”.

The Court talked about Article 21 and added that “the personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law”.

More recently, in 2018, in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the apex court held that “The grant of bail is the general rule, and putting a person in jail is an exception”. Delivering the verdict, Justice Madan Lokur lamented: “Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of, with the result that more and more people are being incarcerated and for longer periods.” He, too, invoked Article 21 and said that overcrowding of prisons affects the “dignity” of convicts.

The SC has repeatedly emphasized the “humane” treatment of the accused, including in the Dataram Singh case. As the Court pointed out, “conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance”. It flows from the spirit of the apex court’s rulings, therefore, that bail should not be made to appear as an act of charity, as in the Zargar case, because it emanates from constitutional principles.

A) The author is concerned regarding the granting of bail to Safoora Zargar.

B) The author is concerned as to why Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not applied in the present case for granting bail.

C) The Code of Criminal Procedure’s inadequacy to define the term ‘bail’.

D) The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. the State of Punjab (1980) curtailed the freedom of movement of a person.

A) The act of arresting a person is independent of the freedom of movement of the person.

B) An order of bail does not give an accused freedom of movement.

C) The personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamentally subject to procedure. established by law.

D) Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not guarantee protection against prolonged imprisonment of an undertrial.

A) People are being incarcerated for longer periods; however, this overcrowding of Prisons does not affect the “dignity” of convicts.

B) Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted very narrowly.

C) The conditions for the grant of bail ought to be strict enough so as to be incapable of compliance.

D) The grant of bail is the general rule, and putting a person in jail is an exception.

A) Bail is an act of charity and should be given to every accused or convict.

B) Bail emanates from constitutional principles.

C) Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection against arrest.

D) “Humanitarian grounds” should not be a ground for granting bail.

During the lockdown, Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code was widely invoked against those not following it. In a communication to the states on March 24, the Home Ministry said persons violating the containment measures will be liable to be punished under provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005, besides Section 188 IPC. A look at these and related provisions:

Section 188 of the IPC deals with those disobeying an order passed by a public servant and provides for imprisonment ranging from one to six months. For those violating orders passed under the Epidemic Diseases Act, Section 188 IPC is the provision under which punishment is awarded.

Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, provides for punishment for two kinds of offenses: obstructing any officer or employee of the government or person authorized by any disaster management authority for the discharge of a function; and refusing to comply with any direction given by the authorities under the Act. Punishment can extend to one year on conviction, or two years if the refusal leads to the loss of lives or any imminent danger.

Section 505 IPC provides for imprisonment of three years or a fine, or both, for those who publish or circulate anything that is likely to cause fear or alarm. Section 54 of The Disaster Management Act provides for imprisonment, extending to one year, for those who make or circulate a false alarm or warning regarding a disaster or its severity or magnitude.

Under Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, whoever makes a false claim for obtaining “any relief, assistance, repair, reconstruction, or other benefits” from any official authority can be sentenced to a maximum of two years imprisonment, and a fine will be imposed on the person.

In the event of the refusal or withdrawal of any officer who has been tasked with any duty under the Act, the officer can be sentenced to imprisonment extending to one year. However, those who have the written permission of the superior or any lawful ground are exempt from such punishment. A case cannot be initiated without explicit sanction from the state or central government.

For any offense under the Disaster Management Act, a court will take cognizance only if the complaint is filed by the national, state, or district authority, or the central or state government. However, there is another provision: if a person has given notice of 30 days or more about an alleged offense and about his or her intention to file a complaint, he or she can approach the court, which can then take cognizance.

The Act protects government officers and employees from any legal process for actions they took “in good faith”. Under the Epidemic Diseases Act, too, no suit or other legal proceedings can lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith.

A) Yes, because A did not obey the order passed by Mr. Y.

B) No, because Section 188 IPC cannot be invoked by Mr. Y against his employee.

C) Yes, because it is an order passed by a public servant.

D) No, because he has the freedom of choice to make his own decisions.

A) No, because he did a service to the public by informing them about the possibility of a Cyclone.

B) Yes, because he made and circulated a false warning regarding the cyclone.

C) No, because he is immune from criminal proceedings as a news editor.

D) Yes, because he spread misinformation.

A) Yes, because he made a false claim for obtaining assistance from

B) No, because such frivolous claims do not require litigation.

C) Yes, because his actions were a nuisance to his neighbor.

D) No, because he did not make the false claim of obtaining assistance from an official authority.

(a) Six months

(b) Ten months

(c) One year.

(d) Two years.

A) Yes, because she was born in the United States.
B) No, because neither of her parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.
C) Yes, because her parents were citizens of Canada.
D) No, because she has lived in Canada since she was three years old.

A) Yes, since it discriminates unfairly based on nationality.
B) No, since the right under Article 14 only applies to citizens of Country X.
C) Yes, since the policy discriminates based on citizenship.
D) No, since the policy applies uniformly to all citizens of other countries.