CLAT PG Mock Test - 2 Free Online Test 2026

The correct answer is Option D - P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)

In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) the Supreme Court held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions is encompassed by the right to carry on any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Court recognised that management of private educational institutions amounts to an occupation and therefore attracts protection under Article 19(1)(g), while permitting only reasonable regulation by the State to maintain standards; however, state-imposed fixation of core admission policy or mandatory reservations in unaided private professional colleges was held to be impermissible.

For these reasons, the ruling in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) is the authoritative decision that treats the establishment and administration of educational institutions as part of the right to freedom under Article 19.

The correct answer is Option B - The voters have a fundamental right to know the antecedents of the candidate contesting the election, including his/her criminal past

The Supreme Court held that information about a candidate's background, including criminal antecedents, is essential for an informed electorate and falls within the scope of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), because it enables meaningful public debate and choice.

To give effect to this principle, the Court directed mandatory disclosure by candidates through an affidavit filed with the Election Commission stating their criminal cases, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications, and that this information be made accessible to the public.

While the judgment is grounded in the broader idea that voters must have relevant information to exercise their franchise, the operative holding specifically requires disclosure of candidates' antecedents; the other option statements do not capture this precise legal directive and therefore are not the correct description of the decision.

Conclusion: The Court recognised a voter's right to know the antecedents of electoral candidates and mandated disclosure to ensure informed voting.

The correct answer is Option D - Fisheries Case

The case is United Kingdom v. Norway (Fisheries Case, 1951), which concerned Norway's method for measuring the territorial sea by using straight lines joining points on the coast.

The International Court of Justice accepted that, in the particular geographic circumstances of Norway's coast, the use of straight baselines could be justified and used to delimit the territorial sea.

The Court did not establish a single rule applicable to all coasts; rather, it recognised that where a coastline is deeply indented or has a fringe of islands, a baseline method may be permissible for delimiting the territorial sea.

For these reasons, the Fisheries Case is the authoritative precedent dealing with the permissibility of the baseline method in certain coastal areas.

The correct answer is Option C - all of the above

Under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a framework for settlement of disputes arising under the Convention is established; Article 287 allows States parties to select the forum for resolving such disputes.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is a treaty-established forum explicitly provided by UNCLOS to hear cases concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is available as an alternative judicial forum under UNCLOS when States choose it as their agreed dispute-resolution mechanism.

UNCLOS also provides for arbitral tribunals, including general arbitration under Annex VII and the system of special arbitral tribunals set out in Annex VIII for certain categories of disputes; these are treaty-based options for binding resolution.

Because UNCLOS expressly provides for all three mechanisms-the ITLOS, the ICJ, and special arbitral tribunals-all the listed forums are correct, and thus Option C is the right choice.

The correct answer is Option A - Statements I and II are correct.

Article 226 empowers a High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose; this power enables judicial review of administrative decisions and actions by executive authorities.

The recognised principal grounds for such judicial review include perversity, patent illegality, irrationality (including Wednesbury unreasonableness), want of jurisdiction or excess of power, and procedural irregularity; these are the traditional, established bases on which courts examine and quash administrative acts or orders.

The third statement, however, is imprecise. Judicial review under Article 226 challenges the legality of the impugned action or order and is normally invoked against the authority responsible for that action; therefore saying the review is directed simply and only "against the decision" is a narrow formulation and does not accurately capture the institutional mode and remedial focus of Article 226.

Conclusion: Statements I and II are correctly stated as per settled principles of judicial review; the third statement is materially imprecise and therefore not accepted.

The correct answer is Option A - Both are correct.

Statement I is correct. An adoption carried out under the statutory framework becomes legally effective when the competent civil court issues the adoption order; the adopted child acquires the legal status of the adoptive parents and the order is ordinarily final and binding, subject only to ordinary judicial remedies (for example, appeal or setting aside in cases such as fraud or jurisdictional defect).

Statement II is correct. The 2015 law provides that juveniles in the age group 16-18 years alleged to have committed heinous offences may, after a preliminary assessment of their mental and physical capacity by the Juvenile Justice Board, be directed to be tried as adults; this measure has been criticised as inconsistent with the standards of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which treats persons below 18 years as children and requires that their treatment in the justice system reflect their age and need for rehabilitation rather than adult punishment.

Accordingly, both statements are correct.

The correct answer is Option B - Any order passed by the district magistrate may file an appeal before the High Court

The statement in Option B is incorrect because it is both factually and grammatically wrong: an order cannot itself file an appeal; an aggrieved person may file an appeal. Further, the amendment prescribes the appropriate appellate forum for particular kinds of orders and does not categorically provide that every order passed by the district magistrate is appealable directly to the High Court.

Statement A is correct: the amendment empowers the district magistrate (or an authorised district authority) to pass adoption orders in place of referral to a civil court, so as to streamline the adoption process.

Statement C is correct: under the amendment the category of serious offences includes offences where the maximum punishment is for more than seven years, and it also covers offences where a minimum punishment is not prescribed or is less than seven years, as specified by the amended provision.

Statement D is correct: the amended law provides that offences under the Act are to be tried by the designated Children's Court, which has jurisdiction to deal with matters under the Act.

Therefore, Option B is the incorrect statement and is the correct choice for this question.

The correct answer is Option B - 21st November 2013

• On 21st November 2013, Ukraine submitted a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute by which it accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over crimes committed on its territory from that date.

• The practical effect of that declaration was to allow the ICC Prosecutor to carry out a preliminary examination and, if warranted, open an investigation into conduct within the Court's jurisdiction occurring on or after 21st November 2013.

• This acceptance of jurisdiction by declaration is a procedural measure distinct from State ratification of the Rome Statute; it provides the Court with temporal jurisdiction for the period specified in the declaration.

The correct answer is Option B - Constructive Interpretation

Under constructive interpretation the court gives the statutory words a meaning that best effectuates the legislature's purpose and avoids outcomes that would defeat justice; this is also described as the purposive approach.

The statement reflects an insistence that procedural safeguards be applied so as to prevent a miscarriage of justice, even in administrative enquiries; that approach requires looking beyond narrow wording to the remedying purpose of the rule, which is characteristic of constructive interpretation.

Literal interpretation or a strict interpretation reads and applies the text narrowly and mechanically; such approaches would tolerate excluding procedural fairness where the literal text is silent, and therefore do not fit the reasoning reflected in the statement.

Therefore, Option B is the correct choice because the court's reasoning aligns with a purposive, constructive method of statutory interpretation rather than a merely literal or strictly textual one.

The correct answer is Option C - Duty to give reasons.

No one shall be a Judge in their own cause (the rule against bias) and the duty to hear (audi alteram partem) are long-established, foundational rules of procedural fairness.

Duty to give reasons is a later judicial development in administrative law that requires, in appropriate cases, that a decision-maker record and communicate the rationale for a decision so that affected persons can understand the basis and courts can carry out effective review.

The scope and applicability of the duty to give reasons depend on the statutory scheme, the nature of the decision and whether the decision affects rights or legitimate expectations; it is therefore treated as a subsequent addition to the core rules rather than an original plank of natural justice.

For these reasons, Duty to give reasons is the later entrant among the principles listed.

The correct answer is Option c - The administrator may provide for a post-decisional remedial hearing wherever predecisional hearing is not possible.

The two core rules of natural justice are audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause); these remain the guiding principles for administrative action.

In genuine exigencies where immediate action is necessary to prevent imminent harm, an administrator may take summary or interim measures without a prior hearing, provided such action is strictly necessary, proportionate and temporally limited.

Where a pre-decisional hearing cannot feasibly be given, the authority must, as soon as practicable, offer a post-decisional remedial hearing so that the affected person can contest the action and seek appropriate relief; this remedy is intended to cure the procedural shortfall caused by urgency.

The exercise of power in such situations must be accompanied by contemporaneous justification; specifically, the administrator should record the reasons in writing for omitting the prior hearing and for taking immediate action, so that the necessity and proportionality of the step can be reviewed.

Because the availability of a meaningful post-decisional hearing, coupled with recorded reasons and the possibility of review, preserves the essential content of procedural fairness, the position stated in Option c correctly reflects the settled approach to natural justice in emergency or urgent administrative contexts.

Therefore, Option c is correct.

The correct answer is Option C - Decisions of the Security Council on procedural shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members.

Article 27(1) of the UN Charter provides that each member of the Security Council shall have one vote, so statement A is correct.

Article 27(2) states that decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, so statement B is correct.

Article 27(3) clarifies that decisions on matters other than procedural (i.e., substantive matters) require an affirmative vote of nine membersincluding the concurring votes of the permanent members. This is the rule that gives rise to the informal veto power of the permanent members for substantive issues.

Because the requirement of concurring votes of the permanent members applies only to substantive matters and not to procedural matters, statement C is incorrect; it wrongly applies the permanent members' concurrence requirement to procedural decisions.

Statement D correctly restates the substantive-voting rule and the special abstention rule for disputes under Chapter VI and Article 52, paragraph 3, so D is correct. Therefore, Option C is the statement that is not true.

The correct answer is Option D - States are bound by Peremptory norms of general international law (Jus Cogens) only when they have given express consent to it in writing.

• Statement A is correct: Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens) as a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole, from which no derogation is permitted.

• Statement B is correct: Article 64 provides that a peremptory norm may be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character (i.e., another jus cogens norm).

• Statement C is correct: under Article 53, a treaty that, at the time of its conclusion, conflicts with a jus cogens norm is void.

• Statement D is incorrect: jus cogens norms bind all States irrespective of their consent; they are not made dependent on an individual State's express written consent, and States cannot opt out of obligations arising from such norms.

Therefore, Option D is not true.

The correct answer is Option A - Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly

• In Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, the Court held that a Speaker who has been served with a notice of intention to move a resolution for their removal stands disabled from acting on matters under the Tenth Schedule concerning the same members, in order to avoid a conflict of interest and to preserve impartiality in adjudicating disqualification petitions.

• The five-judge bench in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra referred this ruling to a seven-judge bench because the question whether such a notice renders the Speaker incompetent/disabled to act under the Tenth Schedule raised important constitutional issues and required resolution of divergent precedents by a larger bench.

The correct answer is Option B - An immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance.

• Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana held that transactions styled as GPA sales or as SA/GPA/WILL transfers do not themselves effect a transfer of title in immovable property; they create rights of a contractual or representative nature rather than a conveyance of ownership.
• A contract to sell or an agreement and a power of attorney may authorise or obligate a party to transfer property, but transfer of ownership requires a proper conveyance executed by the transferor and compliance with the statutory formalities (including registration where required by law).
• Even when a general power of attorney is executed or registered, it normally operates as an agency instrument; title passes only when a valid conveyance is executed by the transferor (or by the agent in proper form on his behalf) and the legally prescribed formalities are observed.
• For these reasons the Court did not treat GPA/SA/WILL-style instruments as completed transfers of immovable property; they cannot substitute for a duly executed and, where necessary, registered deed of conveyance.
• Conclusion: The legal position affirmed by the Court supports Option B; modes that merely record an authority or an agreement do not, by themselves, vest legal title unless transformed into a proper conveyance satisfying statutory requirements.

Statement 1: Her actions before the court fit within the meaning of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Correct.
The Delhi High Court held that the wife’s false and unsubstantiated allegations of an extra-marital affair caused mental cruelty, making the husband entitled to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, 1955.

Statement 2: It is a settled position of law that unsubstantiated serious allegations amount to cruelty.
Correct.
The passage cites multiple Supreme Court judgments — Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, Nagendra v. K. Meena, Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur — all confirming that false and baseless allegations of infidelity constitute mental cruelty. Hence, this is a settled principle of law.

Statement 3: Under the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law, not only physical violence but causing mental agony is a matrimonial offence.
Correct.
The Supreme Court, in the cited cases, expanded (“reformulated”) the concept of cruelty to include mental pain, agony, and suffering, even without physical violence. Thus, this statement is correct.

Statement 4: There is lack of evidence for the allegations made by wife.
Not an independent inference.
Though the passage mentions that the allegations were unsupported by evidence, this fact serves as the basis for finding cruelty, not as a separate conclusion.

Therefore, the correct answer is: (b) 1, 2 and 3

The correct answer is Option A - Preponderance of probabilities standard.

Preponderance of probabilities, also called the balance of probabilities, means that a fact is shown to be more likely true than not; it is the usual standard in civil disputes where the tribunal decides which version of events is more probable on the evidence.

The phrase prudent man indicates assessment by ordinary care and reasonableness and, when applied as a standard of proof, maps to deciding whether one side's account is more likely than the other; this corresponds to the preponderance of probabilities.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a higher, criminal standard requiring near moral certainty about guilt; it is not equivalent to the prudent man or civil standard.

Clear and convincing is an intermediate evidential standard-stronger than a preponderance but weaker than beyond reasonable doubt-and therefore does not match the ordinary prudent man test.

Prima facie refers to evidence that is sufficient on first impression to raise a fact unless rebutted; it describes an initial showing, not the final comparative standard of proof embodied by the preponderance of probabilities.

Accordingly, the preponderance of probabilities is the correct explanation for the prudent man standard.

The correct answer is Option B - Where the defence raises a plea of insanity under S.84, IPC, the prosecution has no additional burden, but the defence assumes the burden of proving insanity.

Under criminal law, the primary burden of proof on the prosecution is to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

S.84, IPC operates as a statutory exception (a defence) and, as a general rule, the evidentiary burden of raising and proving that exception rests on the accused; the accused must place on record credible material to show unsoundness of mind, ordinarily on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities.

Once the accused adduces credible evidence of insanity, the prosecution may have to meet or rebut that evidence in order to sustain the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; this, however, is distinct from an initial or independent additional burden on the prosecution to disprove insanity before the defence has produced any evidence.

Therefore, in the usual course, the statement in Option B correctly states the legal position: the defence bears the principal burden of proving insanity, and the prosecution does not carry an extra initial burden, although it must rebut any credible evidence of insanity adduced by the defence to maintain its case.

The correct answer is Option D - The provisions contained in sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Section 11(2) preserves the court's equitable discretion in granting specific relief; the court may refuse or qualify the remedy after considering the conduct of the parties and the adequacy of alternative remedies.

Section 14 identifies classes of contracts for which courts will ordinarily not decree specific performance, for example those involving personal service, continuous supervisory duties or situations where supervision by the court would be impracticable.

Section 16 deals with cases where specific performance may be refused on equitable grounds (including lack of mutuality or where performance would cause undue hardship), so that the remedy is not automatic even if a contractual right exists.

Taken together, these provisions show that the grant of specific performance is subject to the court's discretion and to the statutory exceptions and restrictions contained in sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Act, which makes Option D the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option C - State Government; Chief Justice of the High Court.

The power to designate subordinate civil courts as Special Courts within a State lies with the State Government because administration and organisation of subordinate civil courts are matters entrusted to the State; such designation is therefore made by the executive authority of the State.

The requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court ensures judicial coordination and that the jurisdiction and allocation of cases are consistent with the High Court's supervisory role over subordinate courts.

Proposals that the Central Government act in consultation with the Chief Justice of India are not appropriate for the designation of State-level civil courts, since administrative control of those courts is exercised by the State in consultation with the High Court; therefore Option C is correct.

The correct answer is Option C - Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.

Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 is the leading Supreme Court authority on the circumstances in which medical practitioners can be subjected to criminal proceedings for negligence.

• The Court held that criminal prosecution must be limited to cases of gross negligence or recklessness, and that mere error of judgment or inadvertence by a medical professional does not attract criminal liability.
• The judgment stressed the requirement of a reliable expert medical opinion before initiating criminal proceedings against a doctor, to ensure allegations are supported by medical evidence rather than conjecture.
• The Court cautioned against the routine or automatic arrest of doctors; magistrates were instructed to exercise care and not treat arrest as the first or default step in every allegation of medical negligence.
• The decision draws a clear distinction between civil liability (for compensation) and criminal liability, reserving criminal sanctions for conduct that is truly blameworthy and falls within the narrow band of criminal negligence.
• For these reasons, the case is treated as a seminal judgment on medical negligence; the other listed decisions do not lay down the same comprehensive principles governing criminal prosecution of medical practitioners.

Therefore, Option C is the correct choice.

Under Article 213 of the Constitution, the Governor can promulgate an Ordinance only when the State Legislature is not in session.
In a bicameral state legislature, this means both Houses must not be in session.
Conditions like Emergency or President’s Rule do not affect the Governor’s power under Article 213.

Hence, the correct option is: (d)

• Article 213 provides that an ordinance promulgated by the Governor shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature unless approved earlier.
• Article 174 (corresponding provision for States) requires that not more than six months shall intervene between the last sitting of the Legislature in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.
• Therefore, the longest possible duration from the date of promulgation is six months (maximum permissible gap before reassembly) plus six weeks after reassembly, giving seven-and-a-half months.

Hence the correct option is C.

The correct answer is Option D - Law and law-making can be understood using the partisan or the neutral model

Waldron treats the two frameworks-the partisan model and the neutral model-as alternative analytic lenses for explaining how laws are made, rather than as mutually exclusive empirical truths.

He rejects any single, absolute explanation of lawmaking because such an account would omit the range of influences-formal institutions, strategic behaviour, and public pressures-that affect legislative outcomes; the two-model approach lets us compare and test these competing explanations.

For these reasons, the statement that law and law-making can be understood using either a partisan or a neutral model most accurately reflects Waldron's methodological position and is therefore the best choice.

The correct answer is Option A - Ronald dworkin, taking rights Seriously,1977

Ronald Dworkin maintained that legal reasoning depends on more than merely discrete statutory or conventional rules; it also relies on moral-legal principles that contribute to judicial decisions.

He drew a distinction between rules, which when applicable yield a determinate outcome, and principles, which function as considerations of variable weight that judges balance when rules are indeterminate or in conflict.

This account challenges a narrowly empirical account of law that confines legal content to social sources alone, because it recognises that principles have a justificatory role in reaching correct legal decisions.

For these reasons, the position described is attributable to Dworkin's argument in Taking Rights Seriously, 1977, and Option A is therefore correct.

The correct answer is Option A - Inner morality

These requirements form the set of standards identified by Lon L. Fuller as the inner morality of law, i.e., procedural qualities that legal rules must satisfy to guide behaviour and enable the legal system to function as law.

Generality: Rules should apply to classes of persons or situations rather than be ad hoc commands directed at particular individuals, so conduct can be planned around them.

Publicity: Rules must be publicly promulgated so that people can know what the law requires and arrange their conduct accordingly.

Prospectivity: Rules should operate for the future and not impose retrospective obligations or punishments that people could not have anticipated.

Clarity: Rules must be understandable; vagueness prevents people from knowing what conduct is required or forbidden.

Coherence (non-contradiction): Rules must not conflict with one another; internal consistency is necessary for predictable application.

Practicability: Rules must be capable of being followed; demands that are impossible to obey undermine legality.

Stability: Rules should remain sufficiently constant over time so that people can rely on them when planning their affairs.

Congruence between declared rule and official action: The actual conduct of officials must conform to the rules they promulgate, so that rules have real, predictable effects.

These features together constitute the inner morality of law as described by Lon L. Fuller, which is why Option A is the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option D - (I), (II) and (III) are true.

The first statement is correct. By standard commercial and legal usage, amalgamation includes the form where one or more companies are merged into an existing company; this form is commonly called absorption, in which the absorbing company continues and the transferor's assets and liabilities are taken over.

The second statement is correct. Amalgamation also covers the form where two or more companies combine to form a completely new entity; this form is often called consolidation, and the original companies cease to exist as separate legal persons after the combination.

The third statement is correct. In an amalgamation the company or companies transferring their business (the transferor or amalgamating companies) are extinguished without undergoing a separate winding-up process; their assets and liabilities vest in the transferee or the newly formed company, and the transferor is dissolved without winding up.

Therefore, all three statements are true.

The correct answer is Option C - Dominant

When guilt is to be inferred from surrounding facts rather than direct proof, the legal standard remains beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence must therefore play a dominant role in the court's approach.

Judicial tests require that (a) every relevant circumstance be firmly established, (b) the proved facts must be such as to be consistent only with guilt, (c) the circumstances must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and (d) the chain of circumstances must be complete and unbroken.

If the chain is incomplete or a reasonable hypothesis of innocence remains, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused and conviction cannot safely follow; this underlines why the presumption of innocence must have a dominant role.

The correct answer is Option C - Pure knowledge based on reality

• Science of law denotes a systematic and objective study of legal rules, institutions and practices to produce reliable knowledge about how law operates.
• As an intellectual discipline it is primarily descriptive and analytical: it seeks to explain and organise legal phenomena rather than to prescribe specific conduct or policies.
• Its conclusions are meant to be grounded in observable facts, logical analysis or established principles (that is, they are empirical or rationally justified), not mere idealistic or purely abstract formulations.
• The term judicial purpose refers to the aims and functions of courts (such as adjudication and dispute resolution), which is distinct from the knowledge-oriented goal of the science of law.
• Therefore, the most accurate characterisation is that the science of law aims at pure knowledge based on reality, making Option C the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option C - It deals with the agreement which is void from its inception.

Section 2(j) defines a voidable contract as an agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others.

A voidable contract remains valid and enforceable until the party entitled to avoid it elects to do so; it is therefore not void from its inception.

When the right to avoid is exercised, the contract ceases to be enforceable from the time of such avoidance and thus becomes void from that point.

Option C is incorrect because it describes an agreement that is void ab initio (that is, void from its inception), whereas Section 2(j) deals with voidable contracts that are initially valid but may later be avoided.