Sample Paper for SLAT 2023

a. C

b. E

c. D

d. F

a. Bread

b. Wine

c. Tea

d. Rice

a. Uncle & Nephew

b. Brothers

c. Father & Son

d. Father-in-law & Son-in-law

4.Principle: A person cannot complain against harm to which he has voluntarily consented. Precautions can be taken only against reasonably foreseeable mishaps.

Facts: X purchased premium front row tickets to a horse racing event. Unexpectedly, the horse veered into the crowd and X sustained injuries as a result. Is X entitled to claim damages?

a. No, X is not entitled to damages as he should have exercised caution.

b. Yes, X is entitled to damages as he did not consent to get injured.

c. No, X is not entitled to damages as he agreed to the injury by voluntarily purchasing tickets for the event.

d. Yes, X is entitled to damages even though he voluntarily consented to get injured by purchase of tickets.

a. The contract will be valid.

b. The contract will be void since the maximum number of parties to a contract under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and under Indian Contract Act, 1872 is ten.

c. The contract will be void because Coal India Limited is not a party to it.

d. The contract will be void since the object of the contract is to cause a loss to the interests of Coal India Limited and Public Interest.

6.Legal Principle: Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Facts: James refuses to give a sample of his blood after he is stopped by the police for driving over the speed limit. The police suspect him to be driving under the influence of alcohol, which is prohibited under the law.

a. James is protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample.

b. James is not protected by Article 20(3) as he was under the influence of alcohol.

c. James is not protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample since he is not accused of any offence yet.

d. Refusal to give a blood sample is a crime and James must be punished for the same.

a. 6

b. 7

c. 8

d. 9

a. CECSUSS

b. CCEUSSS

c. SCUSCES

d. UCSECSS

a. North

b. South

c. West

d. East

When Primo Levi, the chemist, writer and Holocaust survivor, died in 1987, Elie Wiesel made an infamous observation: ‘Primo Levi died at Auschwitz forty years later.’ Like Levi, Ishmael diedat his home that was destroyed, nearly twenty years later. I don’t know why he chose to end his life; perhaps living had become a terrible price to pay. ‘Exacting’, was the word he had used when we first spoke almost a decade ago. For all his eloquence about war, violence and pain, Ishmael appeared childlike. He was a boy when he had lost everyone and everything to the war. He had never reconciled with the violence, and the loss of his country never made sense to him.

‘Where do I belong?’ Ishmael asked once. This question of belonging, which he left without answering, haunts me the most.

Did he belong to his land? To this time? Or did he belong to silence and forgetting?

When I worked for the War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia, I spent months reading the witness summaries of victims and survivors. Many of the witnesses who came before the tribunal were those who had survived heinous crimes, had witnessed them, or had family who were victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They talked of starvation, of the destruction of their homes and community; separation and disappearances of family members; physical torture; sexual violence and rape; abuse, torture and the killing of others; perilous flight or escape and forced exile. What they often spoke of as justice was really a deep longing to make sense of their loss. When people came to testify at the tribunal, they brought tokens with them; anything that would convey their loss, make them human and not another witness number or statement. Above all, they wanted their personal purgatories to be recorded, remembered and acknowledged. Some brought photographs of the family they had lost and gave them to the lawyers and investigators. Justice, for many of them, was about not being forgotten.

Ishmael was no different. In his museum of forgotten facts, he obsessively collected maps and old photographs of his home—proof that his memories were true, that his city was not imagined but had existed, even if they were clippings from newspapers. But the maps did not speak his language; they speak the language of the state, the bureaucrats, politicians and the armies. Maps are objects of power, and they do not belong to the people. Maps are keepers of a state’s knowledge: the distances, the miles, the nautical and where things begin and end.

Source: Excerpts from Midnight Borders: A People’s History of Modern India by Suchitra Vijayan.

a. Demanding

b. Challenging

c. Laborious

d. All the above

a. Primo Levi

b. Ishmael

c. The author

d. Elie Wiesel

a. It was his hobby.

b. To show that his city was real.

c. He was a cartographer.

d. To teach his kids.

a. Nani Palkhiwala

b. Falis S. Nariman

c. Motilal C. Setalvad

d. M. Seervai

a. Wetlands Action for People and Nature

b. Wetland Restoration

c. Wetlands and Water

d. Wetlands and Biodiversity

a. Madhya Pradesh

b. Maharashtra

c. Gujarat

d. Rajasthan