CLAT PG Mock Test - 4 Free Online Test 2026

The correct answer is Option C - The scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to any class of citizens under the scheme of Article 16 (1).

• Indra Sawhney held that reservations in promotions for backward classes under the specific power in Article 16(4) are not permissible; this overruled the earlier view in Rangachari that had allowed such reservations.
• The Division Bench in Rajeev Kumar Gupta clarified that the prohibition in Indra Sawhney applies only where the State seeks to grant preferential treatment in promotions to backward classes under Article 16(4).
• Where the State provides differential treatment under the general equality guarantee of Article 16(1) - for example, on the ground of physical disability (PWD) - the Indra Sawhney restriction does not automatically apply; such measures are permissible provided the basis of classification is not one of the impermissible factors proscribed by the Constitution.
• Therefore, consistent with the cited decision, the scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) (subject to constitutional limits), and Option C correctly states this proposition.

The correct answer is Option D - Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields.

• The subject of mines and oilfields falls under the Union List (List I) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; matters concerning regulation and safety in these sectors are within the exclusive legislative competence of the Central Government.

• Most general labour subjects such as trade unions, industrial disputes, social security and welfare of labour are placed on the Concurrent List (List III), where both Parliament and state legislatures may legislate; hence options A, B and C are not exclusively Central.

• Practical confirmation is found in central enactments addressing mining and oilfield safety (for example, the central Mines Act and other Central statutes), which reflect Parliament's exclusive role in regulating these industries.

• Therefore, the Central Government alone is exclusively competent to legislate on regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields.

The correct answer is Option C - Natural law is necessary for a good positive law, and they are identical in content but differ in form.

Natural law, for Hobbes, consists of the precepts of reason that direct individuals toward self-preservation and the seeking of peace; these are not sovereign commands but rational rules about what will best secure human life and safety.

Positive law (or civil law), by contrast, is the set of rules issued by the sovereign and backed by sanction; its authority rests on being a command enforceable by the common power, rather than on being a bare conclusion of private reason.

Hobbes holds that for a civil law to be a truly good law it should reflect the same substantive requirements indicated by natural law (for example, rules that protect life and order); this is why the content of good positive law often coincides with natural law.

They nonetheless differ in form: natural law is a general rational prescription discovered by individual reason, whereas positive law is the explicit, enforceable formulation made by the sovereign. This captures why the two can be identical in content but different in legal form and source.

Therefore, the statement in Option C correctly summarises Hobbes's position that natural law supplies the material standard for good civil legislation while positive law is its authoritative, enforceable expression.

The correct answer is Option D - R. Stammler

• Rudolf Stammler formulated the view known as "Natural Law with a Variable Content", holding that the idea of natural law is a formal standard of justice whose concrete content is shaped by the historical and social conditions of a given society.

• Stammler treated natural law as a method of critical evaluation: law should be measured against an ideal of justice grounded in reason, but the specific rules that realise that ideal vary with changing social facts and stages of development.

• By contrast, St. Thomas Aquinas locates natural law in the eternal law and human nature, giving it a more fixed, moral content derived from a divine or natural order.

• John Locke emphasises natural rights (notably life, liberty, property) and a social-contract framework; his account treats certain rights as fundamental rather than as historically variable content of natural law.

• Hobbes defines natural law as dictates of reason aimed at self-preservation and bases political authority on the resulting social contract; this is different in emphasis from Stammler's idea of variable substantive content set by social conditions.

• Therefore, the designation "Natural Law with a Variable Content" is correctly attributed to R. Stammler.

The correct answer is Option b - 1, 2 & 4 are correct

3-2 majority: A five-judge Constitution Bench decided the case by a 3-2 split; three judges formed the majority and two judges dissented.

Statement 1 - correct. The two dissenting judges, led by Chief Justice J. S. Khehar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, recorded that although the practice was objectionable, the appropriate remedy lay with the legislature rather than the Court; they did not endorse judicial striking down as the proper first step.

Statement 2 - correct (in substance). The bench was divided 3-2. The dissent urged legislative action and asked that space be given to Parliament to frame a statutory response, effectively seeking time (reported as about six months in contemporary accounts) for the legislature to consider measures.

Statement 3 - incorrect as stated. The majority did strike the practice down as unconstitutional, but the summary in the statement mischaracterises the individual reasonings. The three majority judges reached the conclusion for overlapping but distinct legal reasons: one judge emphasised the practice's unconstitutionality, another emphasised its manifest arbitrariness, and another emphasised that the practice was not an essential religious practice protected from judicial review. The blanket phrasing that two judges called it merely "arbitrary" and the third called it "unislamic" is an inaccurate oversimplification of the majority opinions.

Statement 4 - correct. The judges in the majority were Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, Justice U. U. Lalit and Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, who together formed the three-judge majority that declared the practice unconstitutional.

Conclusion: Statements 1, 2 and 4 are correct while statement 3 is a misstatement of the majority judges' distinct reasoning; therefore the correct combination is Option b.

The correct answer is Option C - International Commission on the River Oder Case

Among the choices, International Commission on the River Oder Case is the only one that refers to an international river-commission matter; this matches the subject implied by the missing reference.

Corfu Channel Case concerned maritime passage and incidents between states and is therefore unrelated to river-commission issues.

Trial Smelter Arbitration addressed transboundary industrial pollution and compensation, not a river-commission dispute.

The matter described as auditing of accounts between Netherlands and France relates to financial or administrative audit issues, which does not correspond to a river-commission context.

For these reasons, International Commission on the River Oder Case is the correct selection.

The correct answer is Option A - Island of Palmas Case

The Island of Palmas Case was an arbitration between the United States and the Netherlands decided by arbitrator Max Huber in 1928; the award clarified that effective and continuous display of sovereignty (sometimes called effective occupation) is decisive for territorial title and that mere discovery without continued authority does not establish sovereignty.

The other cases listed concern different legal issues: the Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France, before the International Court of Justice in 1973-1974) dealt with the legality and effects of atmospheric nuclear testing, and the Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania, 1949) concerned passage of warships, mines and state responsibility for damage in territorial waters.

Because the defining features associated with the blank-an arbitral decision on territorial sovereignty emphasising effective occupation over mere discovery-match the Island of Palmas Case, Option A is the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option D - Government Circulars

Article 13(3) provides that, for the purposes of Part III, the expression 'law' includes instruments such as ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom and usage that have the force of law.

Government Circulars are ordinarily administrative directions issued by the executive and do not, by themselves, create enforceable legal rights or obligations.

Court practice distinguishes between executive circulars and legislative or delegated instruments; only where a circular has received statutory backing or otherwise attains the force of law would it be treated as 'law' under Article 13(3).

Accordingly, Government Circulars are not treated as 'law' under Article 13(3) unless they possess the force of law; therefore, Option D is correct.

The correct answer is Option C - No, liability is limited to harm that was foreseeable at the time of the defendant's negligence.

Negligence requires three core elements: a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach.

Causation is examined in two ways: factual causation (the "but-for" inquiry) and legal or proximate causation, which asks whether the harm is sufficiently connected and foreseeable so as to impose legal responsibility.

Foreseeability limits the scope of legal causation: harms that were unforeseeable at the time of the negligent act are generally regarded as too remote to hold the defendant liable.

There are established qualifications: under the thin skull rule the defendant takes the claimant as found, so if the type of harm is foreseeable the defendant remains liable even if the claimant suffers an unexpectedly severe consequence.

An independent, intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the causal chain and make later consequences unforeseeable, removing liability for those later harms.

Accordingly, liability is confined to harms that were foreseeable at the time of the defendant's negligent conduct; unforeseeable, remote harms are not normally recoverable.

The correct answer is Option D - None of the Above

Act of God denotes an unforeseeable natural event (for example, a sudden earthquake or flood) that is beyond human control; where damage results solely from such an event and the defendant has exercised reasonable care, liability for negligence is not imposed.

Inevitable Accident describes an occurrence that takes place despite the exercise of all reasonable care and caution by the defendant; because the harm could not reasonably have been avoided, this is a recognised defence to negligence.

Contributory negligence means that the injured party's own negligent conduct has materially contributed to the harm; it is ordinarily a partial defence, and courts normally apportion damages between the parties according to their respective degrees of fault.

Since each of the three principles above is a recognised defence in actions for negligence, the option stating None of the Above is correct.

The correct answer is Option B - Fraud

The Duomatic principle recognises that where all shareholders who are entitled to vote give their unanimous and freely given consent to a matter, that informal consent can operate in place of a formal resolution.

Consent must be free and informed; if it is induced by fraud the consent is vitiated and cannot be treated as valid under the Duomatic principle. Consent obtained by fraud is therefore an exception to its application.

Consent obtained by coercion or undue influence is likewise not free; such consent is also vitiated and therefore constitutes an additional exception.

Accordingly, both Fraud and Coercion operate as exceptions to the Duomatic principle; while Option B is correct, Option D is also legally an exception, so the question has more than one correct response.

The correct answer is Option D - The act must be approved by a majority of the shareholders.

• Option D is incorrect. The Duomatic principle does not rest on approval by a majority; it requires unanimous assent of the shareholders concerned.

• The doctrine, as stated in Re Duomatic Ltd, binds the company where all members who are entitled to vote give their unanimous and fully informed consent to the matter, even though the formal procedures for passing a resolution were not followed.

• Key requirements are: (a) unanimous consent of the relevant members; (b) consent must be fully informed and freely given (not procured by fraud, duress or mistake); and (c) the act must be intra vires (within the powers of the company). An act that is ultra vires cannot be validated by the Duomatic principle.

• Other limitations include statutory requirements or procedures which cannot be circumvented by informal consent where the law prescribes a special mode of approval.

• Conclusion: None of the four options accurately state the essential requirement (which is unanimous assent). Therefore, no given option correctly describes the Duomatic principle.

The correct answer is Option C - The Doctrine of Indoor Management provides protection to outsiders who rely on apparent authority of officers of the company

The doctrine of indoor management, commonly called the Turquand rule, is a judge-made principle that protects third parties who deal with a company by allowing them to assume that internal formalities have been properly complied with when those formalities are not visible to the outsider.

The rule was laid down in Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856) and is part of common law; it is not itself a statutory provision enacted by the Companies Act, 2013.

The doctrine applies to dealings with companies generally (both public and private) and to acts done by officers or agents who possess ostensible or apparent authority, so outsiders can rely on representations made by such officers in ordinary transactions.

• The doctrine does not protect an outsider who had actual knowledge of the internal irregularity.
• It does not apply where an outsider is put on constructive notice of the irregularity by public documents or filings that disclose the defect.
• It fails in cases of forgery or where the act is clearly ultra vires (beyond the company's powers) or where the outsider colludes in the irregularity.

Given these principles and exceptions, the statement in Option C correctly captures the protective purpose of the doctrine for outsiders who rely on the apparent authority of company officers.

Hence, Option C is correct.

The correct answer is Option C - The Registrar

The Registrar is an officer working under the Central Government, and when instituting proceedings in his official capacity he must obtain the previous sanction of the Central Government before presenting a petition for winding up on behalf of the government machinery.

The concerned company itself may present a petition for voluntary winding up under the Companies law and therefore does not require any prior sanction of the Central Government to do so.

The State Government, when acting in its own executive capacity, does not require the Central Government's prior sanction to institute a winding-up petition in matters within its competence; the specific need for sanction arises in respect of actions taken by officers under the administrative control of the Central Government.

For these reasons, only the Registrar (Option C) must seek the previous sanction of the Central Government before instituting the petition for winding up.

The correct answer is Option B - 69th amendment

The 69th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1991 inserted Article 239AA into the Constitution, creating constitutional provisions for the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Article 239AA specifically provided for a Legislative Assembly for Delhi and a Council of Ministers responsible to that Assembly, thereby making the 69th amendment the amendment that introduced those changes.

Hence, the correct substitution is the 69th amendment.

The correct answer is Option C - OBC reservation

The creamy layer doctrine is an exclusionary criterion used to disqualify socially and economically advanced persons within the Other Backward Classes from claiming reservation benefits; this principle was formulated by the Supreme Court in its jurisprudence on backward-class reservations.

The purpose of the creamy layer test is to ensure that reservation benefits reach the genuinely backward sections within the OBC category rather than those who have achieved sufficient social and economic advancement.

The creamy layer concept is not applied to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; reservations for SCs and STs address distinct historical and social disabilities and are governed differently under constitutional provisions and judicial decisions.

Horizontal reservations (for example, for women or persons with disabilities) cut across vertical categories and are a separate mechanism; they do not make the creamy layer principle applicable to all types of reservation.

Therefore, Option C is the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option D - All of the above

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeks to maintain industrial peace and harmony by providing statutory machinery for prevention, settlement and adjudication of industrial disputes.

• The Act contains provisions to regulate and, where necessary, prevent illegal strikes and illegal lockouts by encouraging settlement through conciliation and by enabling adjudication where conciliation fails.

• It promotes measures for securing and preserving good relations between employers and employees by establishing bodies such as works committees, conciliation officers and boards of conciliation to facilitate dialogue and voluntary settlement.

• The Act defines and regulates lay-off, retrenchment and closure, and provides remedies through adjudicatory forums-including orders for reinstatement or compensation-where dismissals or retrenchments are found to be wrongful or in violation of the Act.

All three stated aims are therefore consistent with the objects and provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The correct answer is Option B - power

Procedural and admissibility conditions imposed by international bodies reduce the power of individuals to obtain remedies by limiting who may bring claims and which claims will be heard; these conditions are commonly treated as admissibility requirements.

Exhaustion of domestic remedies: an individual normally must first pursue available remedies in national courts; failure to do so can render an international application inadmissible.

Victim status / standing (locus standi): many mechanisms require the applicant to show they are directly affected; lack of such status bars access.

Time-limits: treaty bodies and courts often impose strict temporal limits for bringing complaints; missing these limits prevents the claim from being considered.

Jurisdiction and consent: an international institution must have a legal basis to hear individual complaints, such as a treaty provision permitting individual petitions; absent such basis, individuals cannot invoke the forum.

Diplomatic protection / state-espousal: in some areas, relief is available only if a State adopts and pursues the individual's claim, which further restricts the individual's direct power to secure enforcement.

Because these procedural and substantive prerequisites directly limit an individual's capacity to bring and have enforced a claim, the term power best fits the blank.

The correct answer is Option A - Malimath Committee

The Malimath Committee (formally the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System), chaired by V. S. Malimath and constituted in 2000, submitted a set of comprehensive recommendations aimed specifically at reforming criminal law and criminal procedure in India.

Its recommendations addressed areas such as strengthening investigative processes, measures for victim protection and compensation, procedural changes to speed up trials, and improvements in forensic and trial infrastructure; these proposals were targeted reforms within the criminal justice system.

The body chaired by Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah was the National Commission to Review the Constitution, whose primary mandate related to constitutional review rather than direct reform of criminal law; therefore it did not serve as the principal source of criminal-law reform comparable to the Malimath Committee.

The 52nd Law Commission Report is one of many Law Commission reports; it did not play the defining role in comprehensive criminal-law reform attributed to the Malimath Committee in the choices given.

Therefore, among the options listed, only the Malimath Committee specifically proposed wide-ranging reforms of criminal law and procedure.

The correct answer is Option B - Jamesh Stephen

• Sir James Fitzjames Stephen is the authority commonly cited for describing this part of the statute as the weakest part of the Code.

• Legally, Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code defines culpable homicide and Section 300 defines murder, with murder being treated as a species of culpable homicide where certain additional conditions are satisfied.

• The practical distinction depends on the presence of particular mental elements such as intention or knowledge, and on the exceptions enumerated in Section 300; because the statutory language for the two offences is very close, courts and commentators have found the separation difficult in application.

• For these reasons, the critical remark attributed to Stephen is accepted in legal commentary, making the supplied option the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option A - Khula is the right of a woman in Islam to divorce and it means separation from her husband

Khula is the remedy in Islamic law by which a wife obtains dissolution of the marriage at her initiative, typically in return for surrendering or returning the mahr or some agreed compensation to the husband.

It is legally and conceptually distinct from talaq, which is normally the husband's right to repudiate the marriage; khula is the wife's route to end the marriage.

If the husband does not consent, a wife may seek judicial relief to secure khula, so that a court can effect the dissolution where mutual agreement is absent.

For these reasons, the statement in Option A correctly identifies khula as the woman's right to obtain divorce/separation from her husband.

The correct answer is Option D - Principles 21 and 22 of Stockholm Declaration

• Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration (1972) affirms that States have a sovereign right to exploit their own resources but also the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This statement is the international-law formulation of the no-harm rule.

• Principle 22 complements Principle 21 by emphasising the need for international cooperation to prevent, control and abate pollution and other environmental harm that may have transboundary effects, thereby reinforcing the obligation not to cause environmental injury to other States.

• Because these two Stockholm principles together articulate the no-harm obligation and the related duty to cooperate, Option D correctly identifies the instrument and principles that contain the doctrine in question.

The correct answer is Option A - das- sollen, das- sein

Hans Kelsen proposed the Pure Theory of Law, which treats law as a system of norms rather than as statements about empirical facts.

When Kelsen says das- sollen and not das- sein, he emphasises that legal propositions express what ought to be done (normative content), not what is the case (descriptive facts).

The validity of a legal norm, in this view, depends on its place within the normative structure (for example, its relation to a higher norm such as the Grundnorm), not on empirical verification of facts.

Hence the correct understanding is that law is concerned with das- sollen (ought) and not with das- sein (is).

The correct answer is Option C - Skill or Knowledge

The Latin noun prudentia is best rendered in English as prudence or wisdom, signifying practical good judgment, foresight, and sound decision-making.

The phrase Skill or Knowledge most closely matches this sense because it combines the idea of applied competence (skill) with informed judgment (knowledge), together approximating the practical wisdom expressed by prudentia.

Therefore, the combined expression given in the chosen option is the most appropriate equivalent. Option C is correct.

The correct answer is Option B - Rebuttable Presumption of Fact

• Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act creates a legal presumption as to the legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage (the presumption is expressed in the statute as until contrary is proved), which makes it a rebuttable presumption of law.

• Presumption of law is one made by statute or rule of law and may be either rebuttable or conclusive; by contrast, a presumption of fact arises from inference drawn from evidence and experience and is not a statutory legal presumption.

• Because Section 112 deals with a rebuttable presumption of law and not with presumptions arising purely as presumptions of fact, the kind not dealt with under Section 112 is Rebuttable Presumption of Fact.

The correct answer is Option C - Unfavorable

Under the law of evidence, when a party who is in a position to produce relevant material evidence does not produce it, the court may draw an adverse inference and presume that the evidence, if produced, would have been unfavorable to the party who withheld it.

This presumption is recognised in the statutory presumptions of the Indian Evidence Act (see Section 114) as an evidentiary rule to prevent suppression of proof.

The practical rationale is that a party in possession or control of a relevant document or fact, who intentionally withholds it, is unlikely to omit it if it would support their case; the omission therefore permits a reasonable presumption of an unfavorable nature.

For example, if only the defendant has custody of a contract alleged to establish liability and he fails to produce it despite opportunity, the court may infer that the contract, if produced, would have gone against the defendant.

Accordingly, the correct choice is Option C.

The correct answer is Option C - The World Court has a consensual basis for its jurisdiction, while domestic tribunals do not require consent.

By consensual basis is meant that an international court can hear a dispute only when the states involved have given their consent to its jurisdiction, for example through treaties, special agreements, or declarations accepting jurisdiction.

Domestic tribunals, by contrast, derive their authority from a state's internal legal order and normally exercise compulsory jurisdiction within the state's territory and over persons subject to its law, so they do not require the same prior consent of the parties as an international court does.

Because one system depends on state consent while the other exercises jurisdiction as part of the municipal legal system, Option C correctly states the key difference.

The correct answer is Option B - The ICJ can refuse to give an advisory opinion if it deems the request to be outside its competence.

An advisory opinion is a non-binding legal opinion the International Court of Justice gives on a legal question when requested by certain United Nations organs or by specialised agencies authorised to do so; the Court's power to give such opinions is provided in Article 65 of the ICJ Statute and in Article 96(1) of the UN Charter.

Statement A is incorrect because requests for advisory opinions cannot be made by any state or individual; only those UN organs and specialised agencies authorised by the General Assembly (or the Security Council where applicable) may seek an advisory opinion.

Statement B is correct because the Court decides whether a request raises a legal question within its competence and whether the requesting body is authorised; if the matter falls outside those limits (for example, if it is not a legal question or the requester lacks authority), the Court may decline to give an opinion.

Statement C is incorrect because advisory opinions are not binding on the UN, its organs, or member states; they have strong legal weight and persuasive authority but do not create binding obligations in the way a judgment in a contentious case between states can.

Statement D is incorrect for the same reason: advisory opinions are not binding on the parties who requested them; they serve as authoritative guidance rather than enforceable rulings.

The correct answer is Option D - All of the above.

Statement A is correct because the perceived legitimacy of the court and its procedures affects a state's willingness to accept and implement a judgment. The binding character of judgments under Article 94(1) of the UN Charter does not by itself guarantee compliance; states that view the court as impartial and procedurally fair face stronger domestic and international incentives to comply.

Statement B is correct because the relative power and influence of the parties shapes practical compliance. States with greater material or diplomatic power can better resist or delay implementation, while weaker states may comply to avoid escalation or adverse consequences; thus power asymmetries affect how and whether a decision is implemented.

Statement C is correct because the presence of ongoing diplomatic relations provides mechanisms for negotiation, clarification, and implementation of a judgment. Active diplomatic channels increase the prospects for peaceful settlement of practical difficulties and for monitoring and carrying out remedial measures ordered by the court.

All three factors interact in practice: since the court has limited coercive enforcement, compliance depends on a mix of legitimacy, power relations, and diplomatic engagement, which together determine the likelihood that states will carry out judicial decisions.

The correct answer is Option C - Smith v. Stage

• Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Transport Board is an authority on vicarious liability; it held the employer liable for a servant's negligent act committed while performing the employer's business even though the servant had acted contrary to express orders.

• Twine v Bean's Express establishes that an employer is not liable where the servant commits an unauthorised act (giving a lift to a stranger) which is held to be outside the course of employment.

• Storey v Ashton is cited on the distinction between a mere detour (still within the course of employment) and a true frolic (outside it); it therefore governs when an employer may be held vicariously liable for a servant's deviation while on duty.

• Smith v. Stage deals with whether an employee injured while travelling in employer-arranged transport is injured in the course of employment for the purposes of the employer's liability/compensation; it concerns the employer's liability to the employee rather than the employer's vicarious liability for wrongs done by the servant to third parties.

• Because the first three cases focus on the employer's vicarious liability for a servant's wrongful acts toward third parties (and the tests for when acts fall within the course of employment), while Smith v. Stage addresses employer liability to the servant arising from travel in employer-arranged transport, Smith v. Stage is the odd one out.