Questions on Legal Reasoning for CLAT UG 2026

1. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. However, this does not mean that all laws must apply to all people equally. The State can classify people or objects, provided the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.

Question: Which of the following classifications would be most likely held unconstitutional under Article 14?

A. Taxing luxury goods at a higher rate than essential goods
B. Providing free education only to children below 14 years
C. Reserving public transport seats for senior citizens
D. Allowing only people with blue eyes to apply for a government job

Answer: D

Explanation: Article 14 prohibits arbitrary classifications. All other options show reasonable classifications based on intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the objective. Restricting jobs based on eye color is arbitrary and lacks justification, hence violative of Article 14.

2. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 requires that for a contract to be valid, there must be free consent of the parties. Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.

Question: Which of the following scenarios does NOT involve free consent?

A. A agrees to sell his house to B after B threatens to harm A’s family
B. C agrees to buy D’s car at market price after inspecting it
C. E signs a contract with F because F is offering a high salary
D. G agrees to a loan from H without pressure or misrepresentation

Answer: A

Explanation: Free consent is absent when consent is obtained through coercion. In option A, the threat to harm A’s family constitutes coercion under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act. The other options show valid, voluntary agreements.

3. The Supreme Court of India has held in multiple cases that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, public order, decency, and morality.

Question: Which of the following would be protected speech under Article 19(1)(a)?

A. A speech calling for violent overthrow of the government
B. A public post criticising government policies without hate
C. Distribution of obscene material in a school
D. Shouting inflammatory slogans in a communal area

Answer: B

Explanation: Option B represents fair criticism, which is a cornerstone of democracy and is protected. The others involve hate speech, incitement to violence, or obscenity, all of which can attract reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

4. The principle of vicarious liability holds a person liable for the acts of another when there is a specific relationship between them, such as employer-employee. However, the act must be committed in the course of employment.

Question: Which of the following situations would make the employer vicariously liable?

A. An employee damages a vehicle while running a personal errand
B. A delivery driver causes an accident while delivering for the employer
C. An employee steals money from a friend during lunch
D. An ex-employee misuses company logo after resignation

Answer: B

Explanation: Option B involves an act done during the course of employment, making the employer liable. The others occur outside the scope of employment or after it ends.

5. The rule of strict liability, as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher, states that a person who keeps hazardous substances on their land is liable for damage if it escapes, even without negligence.

Question: Which of the following would attract strict liability?

A. A chemical leak from a factory affecting nearby homes
B. A driver accidentally hitting a pedestrian while driving carefully
C. A man being bitten by a stray dog on the street
D. A passenger falling in a metro due to sudden braking

Answer: A

Explanation: Strict liability applies when a dangerous thing escapes from one’s land and causes damage. A chemical leak fits this rule. The other options involve either negligence, no control, or public transport liability, not strict liability.

6. Under Indian law, a minor (below 18 years) is considered incompetent to contract. Any contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio (void from the beginning).

Question: Which of the following statements is legally accurate?

A. A minor’s contract is valid if signed with parental consent
B. A minor can be bound by a contract if it benefits them
C. A minor can ratify a void contract on turning 18
D. A minor can sue to enforce a contract made by them

Answer: D

Explanation: While a minor cannot be bound by a contract, they can enforce a contract if it is for their benefit, such as recovering payment or goods. Ratification on majority is not valid for void contracts.

7. The right to life under Article 21 has been interpreted broadly to include the right to privacy, dignity, and clean environment, among others. This means the State must not violate these rights without a fair and reasonable law.

Question: Which of the following actions would most likely violate Article 21?

A. Conducting security checks at airports
B. Denying bail without a hearing
C. Demolishing illegal encroachments after notice
D. Collecting data from citizens under a valid law

Answer: B

Explanation: Denial of bail without a hearing violates the principle of natural justice and personal liberty, which is protected under Article 21. The other actions involve either procedural safeguards or public interest.

8. A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is compensation. Defamation is a tort that occurs when a false statement harms the reputation of a person.

Question: Which of the following is not an example of defamation?

A. A newspaper falsely accuses a teacher of bribery
B. A private diary entry criticising someone’s behavior
C. A social media post calling someone a fraud
D. A radio show accusing a celebrity of criminal activity without proof

Answer: B

Explanation: For defamation, the statement must be published or communicated to others. A private diary is not public and does not harm reputation in the eyes of third parties.

9. The doctrine of precedent mandates that courts follow legal principles established in earlier decisions by higher courts. This ensures consistency and predictability in law.

Question: Which of the following courts is not bound by the decision of the Supreme Court?

A. High Court
B. District Court
C. Magistrate Court
D. None of the above

Answer: D

Explanation: All lower courts in India are bound by decisions of the Supreme Court under Article 141. So, none of the options listed are exempt from this obligation.

10. A person is considered innocent until proven guilty, a principle enshrined in criminal law. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and the standard is “beyond reasonable doubt.”

Question: Which of the following scenarios violates this principle?

A. A person is released on bail pending trial
B. A person is arrested after sufficient evidence is found
C. A person is denied a job due to being an accused
D. A person is acquitted due to lack of evidence

Answer: C

Explanation: Denying a job merely on accusation, without conviction, assumes guilt, violating the presumption of innocence. The other options are consistent with legal process and rights of the accused.