Passage Based Questions for Constitutional Law - 2 | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Read the passage given below and answer the following questions:

Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws, prohibiting arbitrary or discriminatory state action. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, ruling that anonymous political donations violated Article 14 by creating unequal access to political funding, favoring certain parties without transparency. The Court emphasized that laws must have a reasonable classification: a legitimate purpose and a rational nexus between the classification and the purpose. In 2024–2025, debates on electoral reforms highlighted concerns about discriminatory funding laws undermining democratic fairness. Laws failing the Article 14 test can be challenged under Article 32 or 226. For example, a law granting benefits to specific groups without justification may be struck down. The state must prove that any differential treatment serves a public interest and is not arbitrary.

Scenario: A new law allows political parties receiving over 50% of state election votes to access unlimited anonymous donations, while others face strict caps. 

Q1: Rhea, a small political party leader, challenges a state law that grants tax exemptions only to political parties with over 60% voter turnout in their favor, claiming it discriminates against smaller parties. Which fundamental right is Rhea most likely invoking to contest this law?
(A) Right to Freedom of Association under Article 19
(B) Right to Equality under Article 14
(C) Right to Privacy under Article 21
(D) Right to Property under Article 300A

View Answer  

Answer: (B) Right to Equality under Article 14
Explanation: The passage states that Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary or discriminatory state action. A law favoring parties with high voter turnout creates unequal treatment without justification, violating Article 14 (Association for Democratic Reforms, 2024).

• (A) Freedom of association (Article 19) is secondary.

• (C) Privacy (Article 21) is unrelated, per the remembered privacy passage.

• (D) Property rights are irrelevant.

Q2: A non-profit organization files a petition against a central law that provides public funding only to political parties with a national presence, excluding regional parties. Under which constitutional provision can the organization directly approach the Supreme Court to challenge this law?
(A) Article 226 for state-level remedies
(B) Article 19 for restricting political expression
(C) Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights
(D) Article 136 for special leave petitions

View Answer  

Answer: (C) Article 32
Explanation: The passage notes that laws failing the Article 14 test can be challenged under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Courts). Since the law’s discriminatory funding violates equality (Article 14), a fundamental right, Article 32 allows direct Supreme Court access.

• (A) Article 226 is for High Courts.

• (B) Article 19 is not the primary issue.

• (D) Article 136 is for appeals, not original petitions.

Q3: Kiran, a voter, challenges a state law that permits anonymous corporate donations to political parties winning over 50% of assembly seats, arguing it creates unfair electoral advantages. What is the strongest legal ground for Kiran’s challenge?
(A) The law lacks a rational nexus to a legitimate purpose under Article 14
(B) The law violates the right to free speech under Article 19
(C) The law infringes the right to a clean environment under Article 21
(D) The law complies with electoral reform objectives

View Answer  

Answer: (A) The law lacks a rational nexus to a legitimate purpose under Article 14
Explanation: The passage (Association for Democratic Reforms, 2024) requires laws to have a reasonable classification with a legitimate purpose and rational nexus. Anonymous donations favoring dominant parties likely lack a rational nexus to democratic fairness, violating Article 14.

• (B) Free speech (Article 19) is secondary.

• (C) Environment (Article 21, per the remembered environmental passage) is unrelated.

• (D) Compliance would weaken Kiran’s challenge.

Q4: Suppose the government amends the law in Question 3 to require transparency in corporate donations but retains the 50% vote threshold for eligibility. Kiran still challenges the law, arguing it discriminates against smaller parties. Which factor would most likely determine the success of Kiran’s challenge?
(A) Whether the law bans all corporate donations
(B) Whether electoral fairness outweighs equality concerns
(C) Whether smaller parties consent to the donation limits
​(D) Whether the law satisfies the reasonable classification test under Article 14

View Answer  

Answer: (D) Whether the law satisfies the reasonable classification test under Article 14
Explanation: The passage emphasizes that Article 14 requires a legitimate purpose and rational nexus for differential treatment. Transparency improves the law, but the court will assess if the 50% threshold serves a legitimate purpose and is non-arbitrary, determining Kiran’s challenge.

• (A) A total ban isn’t required for constitutionality.

• (C) Consent is irrelevant to equality violations.

• (B) Fairness doesn’t automatically override Article 14.

Q5: A citizens’ group argues that a new law granting exclusive media campaign funds to parties with over 40% vote share in elections violates equality and undermines democratic fairness, especially given concerns about unequal political access in 2024–2025. Which of the following best strengthens their legal challenge?
(A) Testimony that the law aligns with electoral reform goals
(B) Proof that the law enhances voter awareness through media campaigns
​(C) Evidence that the law disproportionately benefits established parties
(D) Data showing that all parties voluntarily accept the funding terms

View Answer  

Answer: (C) Evidence that the law disproportionately benefits established parties
Explanation: The passage (Association for Democratic Reforms, 2024) notes that laws creating unequal access to political funding violate Article 14. Evidence of disproportionate benefits to established parties shows a lack of rational nexus to a legitimate purpose, strengthening the challenge.

• (B) Voter awareness supports the law’s purpose.

• (A) Reform alignment weakens the challenge.

• (D) Voluntary acceptance is irrelevant to Article 14 violations.