Free sample paper · 20 questions

20 questions that get harder. Every trap explained.

Sit a short CLAT PG-style paper in Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, International Law and Family Law. After each answer, see what the question really asked, how the right answer was hidden, how to attempt it, and what to do when you are stuck.

20passage-based questions

4subjects, moderate to toughest

+1 / −0.25right / wrong, 0 if skipped

~1 minper question is the target

How this demo works

Scored like the real paper

Each right answer earns 1 mark, each wrong answer loses 0.25, and a skipped question costs nothing. Your score updates as you go.

Learn after every answer

Four tabs open after each question: what is being asked, how the answer is hidden, how to attempt it, and what to do if you are stuck.

Feel the clock

A small timer nudges you at one and two minutes. Time-boxing is a skill, and it is easier to learn in practice than on exam day.

These are original practice questions written for this site, not past-paper questions. The passages are plain-English statements of settled rules, so each question can be answered from the passage alone, which is how the real paper rewards you. Confirm the law itself from bare Acts and the Consortium’s official notice.

The routine to use on every question

Six steps, about a minute. Practise them here until they feel automatic.

Read the stem first.Know what is being asked before you read the passage.
Find the instruction word.“Based only on the passage”, NOT, EXCEPT, hardest, best. It changes the question.
Hunt the rule.Underline the one sentence that decides the case and set the rest aside.
Predict before you peek.Say the answer in your head, then look for it among the options.
Strike options by trap.Too absolute, reversed, invented, half-true, wrong owner, right rule on wrong facts.
Decide inside a minute.Answer if you can cut to two options and reason between them. Otherwise mark it and move on.

When it gets hard: the PAUSE reset

Every paper has questions that stall you. A stalled mind makes bad reads. Take ten seconds and run these five letters. A hard question is worth the same one mark as an easy one, and leaving one blank costs nothing.

PPause

One slow breath out. Drop your shoulders and loosen your grip on the pen.

AAsk

Say in five words what the question asks. Not what the passage is about.

UUnderline

Find the one sentence in the passage that decides the case. Ignore the rest.

SStrike

Cross out the trap-shaped options first: absolute, reversed, invented, half-true.

EExit or execute

Two left and a reason? Answer. Still foggy after about 90 seconds? Mark it, skip, and treat the next question as a fresh start.

The paper

Take your time on the first question, then try to keep near a minute each. Use the numbers to jump between questions.

Question 1 / 20Score 0Right 0Wrong 0Skipped 0Time 0:00

Question 1 of 20Constitutional LawModerateApplication

Passage

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom, but only on the grounds listed in that clause: the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence. A restriction that is reasonable, but rests on a ground outside this list, cannot be sustained.

A State government bans the screening of a documentary on the ground that it may reduce ticket sales for local cinema owners. Based only on the passage, which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

An application question with an instruction tucked inside it: “based only on the passage”. You are not asked whether the ban is a good idea. You are asked whether the State’s stated ground is one of the grounds the passage allows.

How the answer is hidden

The passage uses the word “reasonable”, and option A borrows it. That is the lure. Reasonableness is only the second hurdle; the first is that the ground must be on the list.

ABorrowed wordSounds sensible and uses “reasonable”, but a reasonable restriction on an unlisted ground still fails, as the passage’s last sentence says.
BCorrectTicket sales and commercial interests appear nowhere in the list, so the ban cannot stand.
CInvented ruleA “general power to regulate trade” is nowhere in the passage. If the passage doesn’t say it, it can’t be your reason.
DToo absolute“Can never be restricted” contradicts the passage, which allows restrictions on listed grounds.

How to attempt it

Underline “only” and “listed” in the passage. They tell you the test is a checklist.
Reduce the State’s reason to three words: “cinema ticket sales”.
Run down the list. Nothing matches, so the ban fails. Now find the option that says so.

If you are stuck

If two options still look fair, ask which one a checklist would produce. Questions like this are binary: a ground is on the list or it is not. Feeling pulled towards A is your sense of fairness talking, not the passage.

Question 2 of 20JurisprudenceModerateMatching

Passage

Wesley Hohfeld analysed legal relations in pairs. A right (claim) in one person corresponds to a duty in another. A privilege (liberty) corresponds to a no-right in another. A power, which is the ability to change legal relations by one’s own act, corresponds to a liability in another, meaning that the other is exposed to having their legal position changed. An immunity corresponds to a disability, meaning that the other lacks the power to change one’s position.

Anita’s ability to transfer ownership of her car by her own act of sale is, in Hohfeld’s scheme, a power. Which position corresponds to it in the person whose legal position her act could change?

What’s being asked

A matching question dressed as a scenario. “The ability to change who owns her car by her own act” is the passage’s definition of a power. You are asked for the paired label on the other side.

How the answer is hidden

All four options are real Hohfeldian terms, and that is the point: they are look-alikes. Each is the correct answer to a different pairing, so half-remembered theory will always find one that feels right.

AWrong pairDuty pairs with a right (claim), not with a power.
BWrong pairNo-right pairs with a privilege (liberty).
CCorrectLiability pairs with a power: the other person is exposed to having their position changed.
DWrong pairDisability pairs with an immunity: the other person cannot change your position.

How to attempt it

Copy the four pairs into the margin: right–duty, privilege–no-right, power–liability, immunity–disability.
Label the stem’s position. It is already named for you: a power.
Read across the pair. Twenty seconds, no memory needed.

If you are stuck

A hook if you blank: power and liability are the “changing” pair, immunity and disability the “cannot change” pair. But the passage is open in front of you. For matching questions the answer is always on the page, so copy the pairs and read across.

Question 3 of 20Public International LawModerateApplication

Passage

Under Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, a treaty does not create obligations or rights for a third State without its consent. Article 38 adds that a rule set out in a treaty may still bind a non-party State, but only because it has become binding on that State as a rule of customary international law, and not because of the treaty itself.

States P and Q conclude a treaty requiring State R, which is not a party and has agreed to nothing, to allow their goods free transit through its territory. No rule of customary international law requires free transit. R refuses. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Whether a non-party State can be bound by a treaty it never agreed to. Two Articles are given, so the real task is to apply both: Article 34 sets the rule, Article 38 the only way round it.

How the answer is hidden

Options B, C and D each try to bind R through the treaty itself: because it affected R, because many States ratified it, because R did not object. The passage closes all three routes. Only R’s consent, or an independent customary rule, would do, and the stem says neither exists.

ACorrectNo consent and no customary rule: nothing binds R.
BEffect is not consentBeing affected by a treaty is not the same as agreeing to it.
CPopularity trapWide ratification does not replace R’s consent. (It might help create a customary rule, but the stem says none exists.)
DReversed burdenThe passage requires R’s consent. It does not make R prove an objection.

How to attempt it

Find the two ways a non-party can be bound: consent, or custom (Article 38).
Check the stem against each. Did R consent? No. Does a custom exist? The stem says none.
Choose the option that says “not bound” for the right reason.

If you are stuck

When every option seems arguable, list the passage’s exits and tick them off against the facts. Two exits, both closed: the answer follows. Don’t try to recall the Vienna Convention. For this type of question the passage is all you need.

Question 4 of 20Family LawModerateApplication

Passage

Under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a valid marriage requires, among other conditions, that neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Under Section 11, a marriage that contravenes this condition is void. A void marriage is invalid from the beginning, and no decree is needed to make it so, although either party may ask the court for a declaration that it is void. A voidable marriage, by contrast, is valid until a court annuls it at the request of the aggrieved party.

Rohan, a Hindu, marries Meena, a Hindu, in a proper ceremony. Rohan’s first wife is alive and the first marriage has not been dissolved. Meena did not know this. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Which status the marriage has when one party already has a living spouse: void, voidable or valid. The passage defines both labels, so your task is to pick the right box and the right consequence (no decree needed).

How the answer is hidden

The scenario adds a sympathetic fact: Meena did not know. Option B turns that into validity. Options A and C borrow the voidable label, the neighbouring concept the passage defines right beside it.

ANeighbouring conceptVoidable marriages are valid until annulled. A marriage with a living spouse falls under void, not voidable.
BTrue but irrelevantMeena’s ignorance may matter elsewhere (for example, children of such a marriage are treated as legitimate under Section 16), but it does not change validity.
CHalf-trueRight label, wrong timing. A void marriage is invalid from the start; a declaration only confirms it.
DCorrectVoid from the beginning. A declaration may be sought, but it is not what makes the marriage void.

How to attempt it

Mark the condition: “neither party has a spouse living”. Does the scenario break it? Yes.
Match the consequence the passage gives: void.
Read each option to its final word. C and D both say void; only one gets the timing right.

If you are stuck

If you cannot recall Section 11, breathe: the passage gives it. Under pressure, keep one pair in mind. Void means never valid. Voidable means valid until a court says otherwise.

Question 5 of 20Constitutional LawModerateTwo-part test

Passage

Article 14 does not forbid classification, but it forbids class legislation that is arbitrary. A classification is permissible only if it satisfies two tests. First, it must rest on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes those grouped together from those left out. Second, that differentia must have a rational connection with the object the law seeks to achieve.

A State law, meant to help economically weak students prepare for competitive exams, offers free coaching only to students whose surnames begin with the letters A to M. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

A two-part test applied to a classification. You must check both parts: is the dividing line clear, and does it connect to the law’s object? The object is in the stem: helping economically weak students.

How the answer is hidden

Surnames A to M is a perfectly clear dividing line, so option A is tempting: it passes the first test. It never checks the second. Option D swings the other way and says the Article forbids all classification, which the passage denies in its first sentence.

AHalf-trueClear differentia, yes. But the passage needs both tests, and this law fails the second.
BInvented rule“May choose whom to benefit first” is not in the passage, and would excuse any classification at all.
CCorrectA surname has nothing to do with economic weakness. There is no rational nexus with the object.
DToo absoluteThe passage says classification is permitted if it meets both tests.

How to attempt it

Write “T1” and “T2” beside the passage’s two tests.
State the law’s object in a phrase, then ask whether surname relates to it.
Pick the option that fails the law on T2, not T1.

If you are stuck

If you are torn between A and C, count the tests. A mentions one; C reaches the second. When a passage lists steps, the right answer usually travels all the way to the last step.

Question 6 of 20JurisprudenceModerateOdd one out

Passage

John Austin described law as the command of a sovereign, backed by a threat of sanction. H.L.A. Hart criticised this view. He pointed out that many legal rules do not order people to do or avoid anything, but instead confer powers, such as the power to make a valid will, a contract or a marriage. Failure to follow such a rule does not bring a punishment; it merely means the act has no legal effect.

Which of the following rules would the command theory find hardest to explain, according to the passage?

What’s being asked

A “hardest to explain” question. You are looking for the single rule that does not fit the command model. The passage tells you what it looks like: it confers a power, and breaking it brings nullity, not punishment.

How the answer is hidden

Options A, C and D are textbook duty-imposing rules with consequences, exactly what the command theory explains easily. They are there to look like “legal rules” so that you pick one at random. The odd one out is the only rule that orders nobody to do anything.

AEasy for command theoryAn order plus a sanction: the model fits perfectly.
BCorrectSets conditions for exercising a power to make a will. Failure means an invalid will, not a punishment.
CEasy for command theoryA duty enforced by a penalty.
DEasy for command theoryA duty enforced by legal consequences.

How to attempt it

Turn the passage into a test: does the rule order something and punish breach, or does it only set conditions for validity?
Run all four options through the test. Three order and punish; one sets conditions.
Choose the one that sets conditions.

If you are stuck

In odd-one-out questions, do not judge each option alone. Sort all four into two groups first. The group with one member is your answer.

Step up: Hard questions begin herePassages now carry a rule and an exception, or two competing views. The marks are the same; the reading is heavier. If a question stalls you, use the PAUSE reset from the top of this page.

Question 7 of 20Public International LawHardApplication

Passage

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, a coastal State may claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending up to 200 nautical miles from its baselines. In the EEZ the coastal State has sovereign rights over exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources. All other States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy in the EEZ the freedoms of navigation and overflight and of laying submarine cables, subject to the Convention.

Coastal State Z passes a law prohibiting all foreign commercial ships from sailing through its EEZ, 150 nautical miles from its coast, saying it has sovereign rights there. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Whether a coastal State may ban foreign ships from its EEZ. The passage splits the zone into two things: resources (the coastal State’s sovereign rights) and navigation (everyone’s freedom). The question is which of the two the ban touches.

How the answer is hidden

Option A is built from a true sentence (“sovereign rights over resources”) stretched past what it covers. That is the partial-truth trap: right words, wrong reach. Option B imports a false premise, that an EEZ is territory. Option C invents a middle path.

AHalf-trueSovereign rights cover natural resources, not all activity. Navigation is expressly left to other States.
BOutside premiseThe passage never says an EEZ is State territory, and it gives other States freedoms there.
CInvented exceptionNo such competition exception appears in the passage.
DCorrectThe ban hits navigation, which the passage says other States enjoy in the EEZ.

How to attempt it

Draw two columns in the margin: “coastal State: resources” and “other States: navigation, overflight, cables”.
Place Z’s ban (sailing through) in a column. It belongs under other States.
Choose the option that says invalid and cites navigation.

If you are stuck

From here the passages get denser. Don’t read for every word; read for the split. “X has this, Y has that” passages nearly always test which side a new fact falls on. If a fact fits neither column, you have probably misread it.

Question 8 of 20Family LawHardRule and exception

Passage

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, gives a daughter in a Hindu joint family the same rights as a son as a coparcener (a member with a birth-right in joint family property). In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), the Supreme Court held that this right arises by birth, so it does not matter whether the father was alive on 9 September 2005, when the amendment took effect. The Court also said that a partition effected before 20 December 2004 by a registered deed or a court decree is not reopened.

Kavita was born in 1990 into a Hindu joint family. Her father is alive. No partition of the family property has ever taken place. Her brothers say she is not a coparcener because she was born before the 2005 amendment. Based on the passage, which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Whether a daughter is a coparcener on facts that look like they fall in a gap (born before the amendment). The passage gives a rule (by birth) and an exception (partitions before 20 December 2004). You must check whether the exception applies.

How the answer is hidden

Option B treats the date the amendment took effect as a birth-date cut-off. Option D states a true rule from the passage (earlier partitions are not reopened) and applies it to a case where no partition happened. A correct rule applied to the wrong facts is one of the most common traps.

ACorrectCoparcener by birth, same rights as a son. No partition has taken place, so no exception applies.
BDate confusion9 September 2005 is when the amendment took effect. It is not a cut-off for births.
CInvented conditionNothing in the passage makes her right depend on her father’s or brothers’ consent.
DRight rule, wrong factsThe exception covers earlier partitions. The stem says none has ever taken place.

How to attempt it

Mark the rule (by birth) and its one exception (earlier partition).
Ask of the stem: was there a partition before 20 December 2004? No.
Pick the option that applies the rule with no exception.

If you are stuck

This is the first “hard” step: a rule with an exception. When unsure, test the exception first. If it does not apply, the rule runs. Take one slow breath here. A hard question is worth the same one mark as an easy one.

Question 9 of 20Constitutional LawHardTwo views, pick the current one

Passage

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court read “procedure established by law” in Article 21 narrowly, as any procedure laid down by a valid statute. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court took a wider view. It held that the procedure must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary or oppressive, and that a law depriving a person of life or personal liberty must also satisfy Articles 14 and 19.

A validly enacted statute allows the authorities to detain a person for up to six months, under a procedure that gives no notice, no reasons and no chance to be heard. The statute lays down this procedure clearly. Applying the law as it now stands under the passage, which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Which of two rules the passage describes governs the case. The phrase “as it now stands” in the stem is your instruction: the later decision prevails over the earlier one.

How the answer is hidden

Options A and B restate the older, narrower reading in the passage, so they sound as though they came from it. This is the outdated-law trap: the passage includes both views on purpose, and the question asks you to pick the current one. Option D tries to be clever by splitting Articles 14 and 19.

AOutdated holdingThis is the Gopalan view, replaced by Maneka Gandhi.
BOutdated holdingThe same narrow view: any procedure will do. The later case says the procedure must be fair.
CCorrectA procedure with no notice, no reasons and no hearing is not just, fair and reasonable.
DPartial ruleThe passage says the law must satisfy Articles 14 and 19 together, not that Article 14 is irrelevant.

How to attempt it

Spot the two cases and their dates. Underline “now stands” in the stem.
Write “old” beside Gopalan and “new” beside Maneka Gandhi.
Eliminate every option built on the old rule, then test what remains against the new one.

If you are stuck

When a passage gives two views, the stem almost always signals which to apply. Look for “now”, “currently”, “as the law stands”. If there is no signal, the later, wider decision is usually the one being tested.

Question 10 of 20JurisprudenceHardRatio and obiter

Passage

The ratio decidendi of a judgment is the legal principle on which the decision rests, which is necessary to reach the result on the facts. Remarks that go beyond what the decision needed, such as observations on hypothetical facts, are obiter dicta. A ratio binds lower courts within the hierarchy, while obiter dicta are only persuasive.

In Case X, a High Court held that an agreement to sell a flat was void because the seller had no title to it, and ordered the buyer’s deposit refunded. The Court added: “Had the buyer acted in good faith and relied on a title certificate issued by the seller’s bank, the result might well have been different.” In a later case, a buyer who did exactly that sues in a trial court subordinate to the same High Court, and says the remark binds the trial court. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Whether a remark in an earlier judgment binds a lower court. The skill is sorting a judgment into “needed for the result” (ratio) and “extra” (obiter).

How the answer is hidden

Options A and C treat everything in a judgment as binding. Option D overcorrects: it says obiter is worthless, but the passage says “persuasive”. The remark begins “Had the buyer…”, a hypothetical, which is the classic signal of obiter.

AEverything bindsOnly the ratio binds. Appearing in a judgment is not enough.
BCorrectHypothetical, and not needed to decide Case X. It is obiter: persuasive, not binding.
CSame-subject trapSame subject matter does not turn obiter into ratio.
DToo absoluteThe passage says obiter dicta are persuasive, so they do carry value.

How to attempt it

Ask what Case X actually decided: sale void, deposit refunded. That is the ratio.
Test the remark: was it necessary for that result? No. It speaks about different facts.
Apply the passage: obiter is persuasive only. Choose the option that says so without dismissing it.

If you are stuck

Spotting obiter: look for “had”, “if”, “might”, “perhaps”. A court speaking in the hypothetical is usually going beyond its decision. If the clue is missing, ask: would the result change if I deleted this sentence? If not, it is not the ratio.

Question 11 of 20Public International LawHardTimeline

Passage

A rule of customary international law binds all States, including those that did not take part in its practice. However, a State that persistently and openly objects to an emerging rule while it is still forming is not bound by it. An objection raised only after the rule has become established does not release the State. This exception does not apply to peremptory norms (jus cogens).

A rule of customary international law on the use of certain fishing nets, which is not a peremptory norm, formed between 1990 and 2005. State M objected clearly and repeatedly from 1992 onwards, throughout the formation of the rule. State N began to object only in 2010. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Whether two objecting States are bound by a customary rule. The details that matter are the dates: when each State objected, relative to when the rule formed.

How the answer is hidden

Option B quotes the passage’s first sentence and ignores the exception right behind it. Option C ignores timing and treats all objections as equal. Option D reverses the result by treating recency as a virtue.

ACorrectM objected during formation, so it escapes. N objected after the rule was established, so it does not.
BToo absoluteThe passage’s first sentence has an exception right behind it.
CIgnores timingAn objection after the rule has become established does not release the State.
DReversedA late objection is the weak one, not the strong one.

How to attempt it

Draw a timeline: rule forming 1990 to 2005. Put M’s objection (from 1992) and N’s (2010) on it.
Apply the passage: an objection during formation counts; one after does not.
Check the last line of the passage (jus cogens). The stem says the norm is not peremptory, so the exception is available.

If you are stuck

Timeline questions are rescued by drawing. Spend ten seconds sketching a line with dates and most of the confusion goes. If the legal terms are blocking you, replace them with “objected early” and “objected late”.

Question 12 of 20Family LawHardInterpretation

Passage

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) lets a wife who cannot maintain herself claim maintenance from her husband. For this purpose, “wife” includes a divorced woman who has not remarried. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 gives a divorced Muslim woman a separate remedy against her former husband. A later special law does not take away a general remedy unless it says so expressly or by necessary implication. The Act of 1986 contains no express exclusion of Section 125.

Rukhsana, a Muslim woman, has been divorced by her husband and has not remarried. She applies for maintenance under Section 125. The husband objects: “The 1986 Act applies to divorced Muslim women, so Section 125 is closed to her.” Based on the passage, which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

How a general remedy and a special law interact. The stem gives the husband’s argument; your job is to test it against the interpretive rule in the passage. (The reasoning reflects the approach of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, 2024.)

How the answer is hidden

Option A uses “always”, too absolute, and the passage says the opposite unless exclusion is express or necessarily implied. Option B would be a good argument if the passage had not defined “wife” to include a divorced woman who has not remarried. Option C sneaks religion in as a reason; the passage never limits the remedy by religion.

AToo absoluteThe passage says a later special law does not remove a general remedy unless it excludes it.
BContradicts the passageThe passage includes a divorced woman who has not remarried in “wife”.
CIrrelevant factReligion is mentioned only to describe the 1986 Act. It does not close Section 125.
DCorrectThe rule in the passage applies, and the 1986 Act has no express exclusion.

How to attempt it

Find the husband’s claim: the 1986 Act closes Section 125.
Find the sentence that tests it: a later special law does not remove a general remedy unless it says so expressly or by necessary implication. Is there an exclusion? The passage says no.
Pick the option that applies that rule.

If you are stuck

Long passages hide the useful rule in one sentence. Read the stem first, then hunt for the sentence that answers the husband’s argument. If you cannot find it in thirty seconds, mark the question and move on. The passage will still be there when you return.

Question 13 of 20Constitutional LawHardDate as the hinge

Passage

Article 31B protects laws placed in the Ninth Schedule from challenge on the ground that they violate fundamental rights. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule on or after 24 April 1973 (the date of Kesavananda Bharati) are open to judicial review, and can be struck down if they violate fundamental rights that form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Laws placed there before that date remain protected.

In 2015, Parliament amends the Ninth Schedule to include a State land law that, a petitioner argues, takes away a fundamental right forming part of the basic structure. The State argues that Article 31B makes the law immune. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Whether a Ninth Schedule law is immune. The date in the passage (24 April 1973) is the hinge, and the stem gives 2015, so you have to compare the two.

How the answer is hidden

Option A is the older belief that Article 31B grants total immunity, the outdated-law trap. Option C reverses the date. Option D invents a test that nobody applies. Only B uses the date correctly.

AOutdated ruleTotal immunity is the pre-Coelho view. The passage says post-1973 laws are reviewable.
BCorrect2015 is after 24 April 1973, so the law is open to review on basic-structure grounds.
CReversed dateThe laws placed before the date are the protected ones.
DInvented testThe test is violation of fundamental rights forming the basic structure, not “violating Article 31B”.

How to attempt it

Circle the date in the passage and write the stem’s date (2015) beside it.
Which side of the date is it? After. So the law is open to review.
Choose the option that says it may be reviewed and struck down if basic-structure rights are violated.

If you are stuck

When a passage hands you a cut-off date, it is nearly always the point of the question. Compare and pick the side. If you remember the case, good; if not, the date does the work for you.

Final stretch: the toughest sevenThese test whether you can hold a three-step rule in your head, keep track of who said what, and spot traps built from real Articles used in the wrong place. If you are running behind, skip one and come back. A blank costs nothing.

Question 14 of 20JurisprudenceToughestWho says what

Passage

Legal positivists such as H.L.A. Hart hold that whether a rule is law depends on its source, such as enactment by a body recognised in the legal system, and not on whether it is morally good. A positivist can therefore call a rule “law” and also say that it is wicked. Natural law theorists, and the German jurist Gustav Radbruch in his later view, argued that a rule of extreme injustice loses the character of law. Lon Fuller argued that law has an “inner morality”, such as clarity and consistency, which a system must meet to be law at all.

During a wartime regime, a statute properly enacted by the recognised legislature makes it an offence to criticise the ruler and prescribes harsh punishment. After the regime falls, a court must decide whether the statute was ever “law”. Which statement best matches the positivist position as described in the passage?

What’s being asked

A “which theory says what” question. You need to match each view in the passage to its owner and pick the one the positivist holds. The scenario is only there to give the views something to disagree about.

How the answer is hidden

Option A is Radbruch’s later view, B is Fuller’s, and C is positivism. The options are built from the passage’s own sentences and handed to the wrong owners, so every option sounds like something you have just read. This is the borrowed-attribution trap.

AWrong ownerThis is the natural law and Radbruch view: extreme injustice means no law.
BWrong ownerThis is Fuller’s view: law must meet an inner morality.
CCorrectSource decides validity, not morality. A positivist calls it law and calls it wicked.
DInventedNothing in the passage makes validity depend on a later court’s approval.

How to attempt it

Beside each name in the passage write a one-line view: Hart, source not morals. Radbruch, extreme injustice is not law. Fuller, inner morality needed.
Read the stem’s key word: “positivist”. Find its line.
Match it to the option that says “law, though wicked”.

If you are stuck

Theory questions feel abstract because you try to remember. Don’t: the passage hands you every view. Treat it as a matching exercise. If you freeze, write three words per theorist and match. This is the first of the toughest set, so don’t measure yourself against how it feels; measure by what the page gives you.

Question 15 of 20Public International LawToughestTest given in passage

Passage

Under the restrictive theory of State immunity, a State is immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts for sovereign acts (acta jure imperii) but not for commercial acts (acta jure gestionis). To decide which kind of act it is, one test looks at the nature of the act: could a private person carry it out? Another test looks at its purpose: does the State do it for a public or governmental end? In this passage, the nature test is to be applied.

State S’s defence ministry signs a contract with a private company in State T to buy boots for its soldiers, and then refuses to pay. The company sues in a court in T. State S claims immunity, arguing that boots serve a military, and so a sovereign, purpose. Applying the test stated in the passage, which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Which test to use, and what it gives. The last sentence of the passage chooses the nature test, so the military purpose in the stem is a decoy.

How the answer is hidden

Your intuition says soldiers’ boots are a military matter, so A and C feel right. That is the purpose test, which the passage told you not to use. C adds “every”, and B is a made-up rule.

AWrong testPurpose is exactly what the passage tells you to set aside.
BInvented ruleNo such rule appears in the passage.
CToo absolute“Every act” fails: the passage separates sovereign acts from commercial ones.
DCorrectBuying goods under a contract is something a private person can do, so it is commercial.

How to attempt it

Underline the instruction: “the nature test is to be applied”.
Ask the nature question: can a private person buy boots under a contract? Yes.
So the act is commercial and there is no immunity. Choose D.

If you are stuck

When your instinct and the passage disagree, the passage wins. (In real life, courts differ on how much weight nature and purpose each carry. In the exam, the passage settles it.) A quick self-check: “What does the passage want me to apply?”

Question 16 of 20Family LawToughestTwo time limits

Passage

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allows divorce by mutual consent. Under sub-section (1), spouses may jointly petition if they have been living separately for a period of one year or more immediately before the petition, have not been able to live together, and have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage. Under sub-section (2), the motion for a decree must be made not earlier than six months, and not later than eighteen months, after the petition is presented. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017), the Supreme Court held that the six-month period in sub-section (2) is directory, not mandatory, and may be waived by the court in appropriate cases, for example where reconciliation is impossible and a settlement has been reached.

Nisha and Rahul have lived apart for eight months. They agree to divorce, have settled custody and money matters, and jointly ask a family court to grant a divorce at once, waiving the six-month waiting period. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Which of two time periods can be waived. Section 13B contains two: one year of separation (a condition for filing) and six months (a cooling-off wait). The stem gives eight months and a request to waive the six.

How the answer is hidden

Option B stretches “the six-month period is directory” into “the waiting periods”, in the plural. Option C uses “must”, a sign of an over-strong option. Option D swaps the six months from the petition for six months from today. The real gap is the first period, which the stem quietly fails.

ACorrectEight months is under a year, so sub-section (1) is not met. The waiver does not reach it.
BStretched holdingThe case waives only the sub-section (2) period.
CToo absoluteAgreement between the spouses cannot supply a missing statutory condition.
DWrong clockSix months run from the presentation of a valid petition, not from today.

How to attempt it

List the two periods and label each: “to file” (one year) and “to wait” (six months).
Check each against the stem: separation, eight months, short. Waiting period, waiver requested.
A waiver cannot repair a petition that could not be filed. Choose A.

If you are stuck

When a question mentions two time limits, put them in a mini-table: what, how long, can it be waived. Most of the difficulty disappears. Resist reaching for what you recall about the Supreme Court’s wider powers (it has, using Article 142, sometimes ended marriages without waiting). The stem is about a family court.

Question 17 of 20Constitutional LawToughestRule, exception, exception

Passage

Where Parliament and a State legislature both have power to legislate on a subject in the Concurrent List, Article 254 applies. If a State law is repugnant to a Union law on that subject, the Union law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. However, if the State law was reserved for and has received the assent of the President, it prevails in that State. Even then, Parliament may later make a law on the same matter, adding to, amending, varying or repealing the State law, and the new Union law then prevails over the State law.

In 2005, a State Act on a Concurrent List subject received the President’s assent. In 2012, Parliament passes a law on the same subject that is inconsistent with the State Act. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

What a Presidential assent protects, and for how long. The passage gives a rule, a protection (assent) and a limit on that protection (Parliament may legislate later). You must reach the limit.

How the answer is hidden

Option A stops reading one sentence early: it is true only until Parliament acts. Option B overshoots by making the State Act void from 2005, but nothing in the passage reaches back. Option D is an invented compromise.

AHalf-trueAssent gives priority, but the passage adds that Parliament may legislate later, and then the Union law prevails.
BRetrospective errorThe passage says the Union law prevails over the State law. It does not say the State Act was void from the start.
CCorrectStep three of the passage: a later Union law prevails over the assented State law.
DInventedThe passage describes a clash and says who wins.

How to attempt it

Read the passage as three steps: (1) repugnancy, Union wins; (2) assent, State wins; (3) later Parliament law, Union wins again.
Place the stem on the steps: 2005 assent is step 2; the 2012 Union law is step 3.
The last step decides. Choose C.

If you are stuck

Passages with a rule, an exception and an exception to the exception are the hardest to hold in your head. Number the steps in the margin (1, 2, 3) and place the facts on them. If that still fails, read each option’s last clause and ask which one ends in the state the passage ends in.

Question 18 of 20JurisprudenceToughestWhich theory, and why

Passage

The will theory of rights holds that to have a right is to have control over a duty owed by another, for example by being able to waive it or to sue for its breach. The interest theory holds that a right exists where a legal duty protects an important interest of the right-holder, whether or not they can control it. A common criticism of one of these theories is that it struggles to explain why very young children, who cannot waive or enforce anything, are still said to have legal rights.

Which theory is the criticism in the passage’s last sentence directed at, and why?

What’s being asked

Which theory the criticism hits and the reason. There are two parts, the target and the reasoning, and both must be right.

How the answer is hidden

The passage does not name the target, so you must infer it. Option A has the wrong target. Option C has the right target with a reason that contradicts the passage. Option D is a vague “both”. Options with a right target and a wrong reason are common in “which and why” questions.

AWrong targetThe interest theory protects interests whether or not the holder can control them, so children are no problem for it.
BCorrectChildren cannot waive or enforce, which is exactly what the will theory requires for a right.
CRight target, wrong reasonThe passage does not say children lack interests, only that they cannot waive or enforce.
DVague “both”The criticism is about children, not adults, and it is aimed at one theory.

How to attempt it

Define each theory in a few words: will = control; interest = protected interest.
Test children against each: they cannot control (trouble for will); they have interests (fine for interest).
Pick the option that has both the right theory and the right reason.

If you are stuck

For “which and why” questions, solve the “which” first and eliminate. Then compare the “why” of whatever survives. If you have narrowed to B and C, check which reason the passage actually supports.

Question 19 of 20Public International LawToughestWhich Article, when

Passage

Under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty is void if, at the time it is concluded, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens). Under Article 64, if a new peremptory norm emerges, any existing treaty that conflicts with it becomes void and terminates. Under Article 71(2), such termination does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation created through the execution of the treaty before it ended.

In 1995, States A and B conclude a treaty that was lawful at the time. In 2010, a new peremptory norm emerges that the treaty’s central term conflicts with. Between 1995 and 2010, the parties performed the treaty. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

A timing question. Two Articles describe different moments (a conflict at conclusion, and a norm emerging later) and a third limits the effect. The stem puts the treaty in the second situation.

How the answer is hidden

Option A applies Article 53 to a treaty that was lawful when made. Option B ignores Article 64 entirely. Option C gets half the answer right (void in 2010) and then undoes the past, which Article 71(2) forbids. Each wrong option uses a real Article in the wrong place.

AWrong ArticleArticle 53 covers a conflict at the time of conclusion. This treaty was lawful in 1995.
BIgnores Article 64A new peremptory norm can end an existing treaty.
CHalf-rightRight on 2010, wrong on undoing the past.
DCorrectArticle 64 ends the treaty in 2010; Article 71(2) protects what was done before.

How to attempt it

Mark each Article with its trigger: 53 = conflict at conclusion; 64 = a new norm later; 71(2) = the past is not undone.
Match the stem: concluded lawfully in 1995, norm emerges in 2010. That is Article 64.
Add Article 71(2) for what happens to past performance.

If you are stuck

With three linked provisions, map each to a trigger word (conclusion, later norm, past effects) before reading the options. If you are short of time, read only each option’s verbs (“void from”, “terminates in”, “undone”). The dates and verbs separate them.

Question 20 of 20Family LawToughestException inside a rule

Passage

Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu male of sound mind who is not a minor may adopt. Under the proviso to Section 7, if he has a wife living, he cannot adopt without her consent. However, the consent is not required if the wife has completely and finally renounced the world, has ceased to be a Hindu, or has been declared by a court to be of unsound mind.

Prakash, a Hindu male of sound mind and an adult, has a living wife, Leela, who converted to another religion three years ago and so has ceased to be a Hindu. Prakash adopts a child without asking Leela, and meets all other legal requirements for the adoption. Which of the following is correct?

What’s being asked

Whether consent is needed for an adoption by a married Hindu male. The passage gives a rule (consent needed) and three exceptions. The stem places Leela in one of the exceptions, so the rule does not apply.

How the answer is hidden

Option B states the general rule and stops. Option D borrows a different exception (unsound mind), which does not fit the facts, and adds a court declaration that conversion does not need. Option C invents a “later consent” route.

ACorrectLeela has ceased to be a Hindu, which is one of the listed exceptions, so her consent is not required.
BGeneral rule onlyRight in general, but the passage immediately lists exceptions.
CInventedThe passage allows no after-the-fact consent route.
DWrong exceptionA court declaration belongs to the unsound-mind exception. Leela falls under “ceased to be a Hindu”.

How to attempt it

Write the rule and its three exceptions as a short list.
Place the stem: conversion means she has ceased to be a Hindu. That is exception two.
Choose the option that says consent is not required, for the right reason.

If you are stuck

Exceptions are where marks are won. After the rule, read the “unless” and “however” sentences twice. If two options look right, ask which one names the exception that matches the facts. You have reached the end of the paper: finish steady, and let the review do its work.

Now plan the time you have.

The best use of the days left depends on how many there are. Pick your pathway, or read why the paper is built this way.

Choose your pathway What CLAT PG really tests