CLAT Legal Reasoning & Aptitude 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Principle: A contract of guarantee is a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default. Fact: Bank lends ₹5 lakh to Rohit; his friend Sunil guarantees the loan. Rohit defaults. The bank sues Sunil directly without first suing Rohit.
- The bank must first exhaust remedies against Rohit before suing Sunil
- The bank can directly sue Sunil as surety for the full amount (Correct answer)
- The bank can only sue Sunil for 50% of the default
- Sunil is discharged because the bank did not warn him before lending
Correct answer: The bank can directly sue Sunil as surety for the full amount
Under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the surety's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor; the creditor may proceed against the surety directly.
Question 2: Which of the following best describes 'judicial review' in the Indian constitutional system?
- The power of courts to examine executive and legislative acts for conformity with the Constitution (Correct answer)
- Parliament's power to review Supreme Court judgments
- The President's power to refer legislation to the Supreme Court for an opinion
- The process by which a High Court reviews decisions of subordinate courts
Correct answer: The power of courts to examine executive and legislative acts for conformity with the Constitution
Judicial review is the power of Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, to strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution.
Question 3: Principle: Contributory negligence of the plaintiff reduces but does not bar recovery in India under the apportionment rule. Fact: Cyclist Meena rides without a helmet and is hit by a speeding car driven negligently by Deepak. Her head injuries are worse due to no helmet. The court finds Meena 30% contributorily negligent.
- Meena recovers nothing because she was negligent
- Meena recovers 70% of her damages after reduction for contributory negligence (Correct answer)
- Meena recovers full damages because the defendant was the primary wrongdoer
- Meena recovers 50% because courts always split damages equally
Correct answer: Meena recovers 70% of her damages after reduction for contributory negligence
Under the contributory negligence apportionment rule, damages are reduced proportionally to the plaintiff's share of fault, so Meena gets 70% of her total loss.
Question 4: A statute says 'no vehicle shall enter the park.' A man pushes his invalid wife in a wheelchair into the park. Has an offence been committed?
- Yes, a wheelchair is a vehicle under any interpretation
- No, because the spirit of the law was to prevent noise and pollution, not exclude wheelchairs (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the literal text covers all wheeled conveyances
- No, because the man was assisting a disabled person and has a valid defense
Correct answer: No, because the spirit of the law was to prevent noise and pollution, not exclude wheelchairs
Using purposive interpretation, courts examine legislative intent; a statute banning vehicles to ensure peace would not be intended to exclude a wheelchair used for disability.
Question 5: Principle: An act done by a person of unsound mind is not an offence. Fact: Akash, suffering from severe schizophrenia, stabs a neighbor during a psychotic episode in which he genuinely believes he is fighting a demon. Is Akash criminally liable?
- Yes, because the physical act of stabbing is proven
- No, because his mental illness negated his capacity to understand the nature of his act (Correct answer)
- Yes, because schizophrenia does not qualify as unsoundness of mind
- No, but only if a court-appointed psychiatrist certifies him after the fact
Correct answer: No, because his mental illness negated his capacity to understand the nature of his act
Under Section 84 IPC, a person of unsound mind who, due to that unsoundness, does not know the nature of the act or that it is wrong, is not criminally liable.
Question 6: The Latin maxim 'nemo debet esse judex in propria causa' means:
- No one should be a judge in his own cause — the rule against bias (Correct answer)
- The judge must hear both parties before deciding
- Ignorance of the law excuses no one
- A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty
Correct answer: No one should be a judge in his own cause — the rule against bias
This maxim embodies the natural justice rule against bias, prohibiting anyone with a personal interest in a matter from adjudicating it.
Question 7: Principle: Where two or more persons agree to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means, they are liable for criminal conspiracy. Fact: Ankur and Biru agree to forge a government document but Ankur withdraws before any forgery is committed. Biru alone proceeds and commits the forgery. Is Ankur liable for conspiracy?
- No, because Ankur withdrew before the overt act
- Yes, because the agreement itself constitutes the conspiracy (Correct answer)
- No, because Ankur did not physically participate in the forgery
- Yes, but only if the prosecution proves Ankur knew of the forgery
Correct answer: Yes, because the agreement itself constitutes the conspiracy
Under Section 120A IPC, criminal conspiracy is complete upon the agreement to commit an illegal act; withdrawal before the overt act does not negate initial liability for the conspiracy.
CLAT Legal Reasoning & Aptitude 5
Principle: A contract of guarantee is a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default.
Fact: Bank lends ₹5 lakh to Rohit; his friend Sunil guarantees the loan.
Rohit defaults.
The bank sues Sunil directly without first suing Rohit.