CLAT PG Mock Test - 3 Free Online Test 2026

The correct answer is Option D - 1993

• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) is the judgment in which the Supreme Court established the collegium practice for judicial appointments.
• The Court interpreted the word "consultation" in Article 124(2) (and related provisions) to mean "concurrence", thereby giving primacy to the judiciary in selecting judges and leading to appointments through a collegium of senior judges.
• This 1993 ruling overruled the approach taken in the First Judges Case (1981), which had given greater weight to the executive in appointments.
• Later, the Third Judges Case (1998) clarified the collegium's composition and procedure, specifying the role of the Chief Justice of India together with the senior-most judges in the selection process.

Therefore, the collegium system was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1993, as held in the Second Judges Case.

The correct answer is Option D - Consolidated Fund of the State

Under the Constitution, the pension of a High Court judge is charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State.

Being charged means the payment is made from that fund and is not subject to the ordinary vote of the State Legislature; it is an obligatory charge on the State's finances.

For contrast, the salaries and pensions of Supreme Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, while High Court judicial pensions are charged on the State's consolidated fund.

The correct answer is Option C - Article 143 (1)

Under Article 143 (1), the President may, when he considers it necessary or expedient, refer to the Supreme Court a question of law or fact of public importance for the Court's opinion.

This power is known as the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

If matters concerning the appointment or transfer of judges raise questions of law or public importance, the President can make a reference under Article 143 (1) to obtain the Court's opinion.

An opinion given under Article 143 is advisory in character and does not have the same binding force as a judgment in a judicial proceeding, although it carries significant legal weight.

The correct answer is Option B - Section 23 of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956

Section 23 specifies the factors that a court must take into account when determining the quantum of maintenance.

• Character and conduct of the parties.
• Income, earning capacity and property of the person ordered to pay maintenance.
• Number of persons to be maintained and their respective needs.
• Existing obligations of the person liable to maintain others.
• Other relevant circumstances including the reasonable requirements and standard of living of the applicant.

Hence, Option B is correct.

The correct answer is Option B - D.K. Basu v. the State of West Bengal (1996)

• The Court required a memo of arrest to be prepared at the time of arrest stating the date, hour and place of arrest and the name and designation of the arresting officer; the memo should be signed by the arrested person and the arresting officer.

• The memo must be attested by at least one witness who should be either a member of the arrested person's family or a respectable person of the locality.

• A copy of the arrest memo must be given to the arrested person at the time of arrest.

• The arresting officer must carry clear identification (name, rank and badge number); if the badge is not available, the officer's name and designation must be recorded in the memo.

• The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and of their right to consult a lawyer and, where applicable, the right to bail.

• The arrested person should be allowed to meet and consult a lawyer of choice during interrogation.

• A relative or friend of the arrested person should be informed of the arrest as soon as practicable and the place of detention.

• The arrested person should be subjected to a medical examination at the time of arrest, or before being produced before a magistrate, and the medical report must be preserved.

• The Station House Officer must make entries of the arrest in the station diary and the arrest register and inform the superior police officers about the arrest.

• The arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate.

• Where there is complaint of torture or if death in custody occurs, the Court insisted on an independent inquiry, preservation of relevant material and initiation of appropriate departmental or criminal action as warranted.

These safeguards were framed to ensure transparency and to protect the arrested person's constitutional and legal rights during custody and interrogation.

The correct answer is Option D - Contingent contract will be enforced only on the happening or not happening of the events respectively.

A contingent contract is one made subject to the occurrence or non-occurrence of an uncertain future event; the event is collateral to the contract (see Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act).

Such a contract is not enforceable until the contingency occurs or fails to occur; this legal rule is stated in Section 32, which makes enforcement contingent upon the happening or non-happening of the specified event. This is the reason Option D is correct.

Option A is incorrect because it treats the event as a certain future event; the law requires the event to be uncertain (its occurrence must be doubtful at the time of contract).

Option B is incorrect because the event on which performance depends is described as collateral to the contract, not as part of the consideration that constitutes the contract's bargain.

Option C is incorrect because the contingency need not be dependent on the promisor; if the event were wholly within the promisor's control, the obligation would not be a contingent one enforceable only on uncertainty.

The correct answer is Option B - The contract is a contingent contract.

Under the Indian Contract Act, a contingent contract is one which depends on the happening or non-happening of an uncertain future event; this principle is stated in Section 31.

Where performance of the obligation is made conditional on an uncertain future event (including the result of pending proceedings), the agreement falls within the scope of a contingent contract rather than being treated as a wager or an automatically void transaction.

A wagering contract (see Section 30) involves parties staking money on the occurrence of an event so that one party wins and the other loses, and creates no real obligations to transfer rights or property; such agreements are void. A contract that creates a real obligation to transfer property or to pay consideration is not a wagering contract.

The presumption that the agreement is void ab initio does not follow merely because performance is conditional. A contingent contract is ordinarily enforceable when the specified contingency occurs; it becomes void only if the contingency is impossible or unlawful.

Therefore, Option B is correct.

The correct answer is Option A - Fiscal matters

Shree Sidhbali Steels recognised a public interest exception to the application of promissory estoppel against the Government, permitting the State to resile from a promise where enforcing it would harm public welfare or statutory schemes.

Courts have routinely applied this exception in cases affecting fiscal matters because such matters involve public revenue and the exercise of sovereign or statutory powers, where upholding an individual promise could conflict with broader public interest or legislative policy.

Typical examples include promises or concessions relating to taxation, levies, duty concessions or similar revenue measures where enforcement of estoppel would unduly restrict the State's ability to protect the public purse or implement fiscal policy.

For these reasons, the jurisprudential trend is to allow the Government a public-interest exception in fiscal contexts while being more circumspect about applying estoppel where private rights or individual service claims are concerned.

The correct answer is Option B - Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution.

• The doctrine of promissory estoppel operates where a promise, though not supported by consideration, induces the promisee to act to his or her detriment and it would be inequitable for the promisor to resile from the promise; courts may enforce such a promise to prevent injustice.

• The essential elements are a clear and unambiguous promise or representation, reliance by the promisee, reliance that is reasonable and leads to a detriment, and that it would be inequitable for the promisor to go back on the promise.

• Article 299 prescribes the formalities for making contracts by or on behalf of the Government; it does not convert the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel into inapplicable law. Courts have recognised that an enforceable promise may arise by estoppel even where no formal contract in the statutory form exists and no consideration was supplied, provided the estoppel requirements are satisfied.

• There are limits: estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government to act contrary to statutory provisions, to spend public monies beyond appropriation, or to override clear statutory or public policy prohibitions. The doctrine is enforced only to the extent that it does not conflict with duties imposed by law or public interest.

• Applying these principles, the legally correct position is that the Government can be bound by a promise notwithstanding absence of consideration and absence of a formal Article 299 contract, subject to the stated elements and public-law limitations; hence Option B is correct.

The correct answer is Option A - The doctrine of promissory estoppel stands diluted where the Government claims that it is in the public interest to go back on its promise or actions.

Promissory estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a promisor from acting inconsistently with a promise when the promisee has reasonably relied on that promise to their detriment.

When the promisor is a public authority or the State, courts balance the protection of private reliance against the wider public interest; if enforcing the promise would cause substantial public harm, courts may allow the Government to depart from the promise.

Statement B is incorrect because the doctrine does not absolutely override claims of public interest; judicial decisions weigh both individual reliance and public welfare before refusing or applying estoppel.

Statement C is incorrect because allowing a public interest exception is not inherently contrary to justice, equity and good conscience; courts apply the exception only when strict enforcement would undermine the greater public good, so the exception is a principled, not merely self-serving, limitation.

Therefore, Option A correctly describes the legal position that promissory estoppel may be qualified where the public interest justifies departing from a prior promise by the Government.

The correct answer is Option A - It infringes on individual autonomy and diversity of thought.

By permitting the law to enforce prevailing moral judgments, legal moralism involves paternalism-the state deciding what is morally acceptable for individuals-which directly restricts individual autonomy.

When legal rules reflect a single moral viewpoint, they tend to suppress dissenting beliefs and lifestyles, thereby diminishing diversity of thought and weakening social pluralism.

Such enforcement also creates risks of arbitrary restrictions and majoritarian oppression, where minority viewpoints are penalised simply for differing from dominant moral norms.

Claims that enforcing moral norms promotes social order or preserves morals are arguments in favour of moralism rather than criticisms; the central critical concern remains the curtailment of individual freedom and pluralism.

The correct answer is Option A - The law should remain morally neutral.

The term legal neutrality denotes the idea that the law and the state should not endorse, favour, or impose any particular private moral doctrine; instead the law must remain neutral among competing moral views.

Neutrality is expressed through impartial application and equal treatment before the law: rules should be justified by public reasons such as protecting rights, preventing harm, or maintaining public order, rather than by sectarian moral commitments.

Neutrality does not mean the law is amoral. The state may legitimately regulate conduct to prevent harm, protect public safety, or secure fundamental rights; the core point is that such regulation should not be based on enforcing a particular private morality.

Therefore, the central tenet is best captured by the view that the law should remain morally neutral, while still allowing lawfully justified, non-discriminatory regulation to protect public interests.

Correct answer: A — To institute a suit for foreclosure

In a mortgage by conditional sale (Section 58(c), Transfer of Property Act, 1882):

• The mortgagor ostensibly sells the property to the mortgagee,

• On condition that if the debt is repaid, the sale becomes void,

• And if not repaid, the sale becomes absolute.

The correct answer is Option A - Section 190(1)(b)

Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers on a magistrate the power to take cognizance of an offence.

Section 190(1)(b) specifically refers to taking cognizance on the basis of a police report, whereas Section 190(1)(a) refers to cognizance on a complaint and Section 190(1)(c) to cognizance on the magistrate's own knowledge (suo motu).

While Section 173 deals with the police investigation and submission of the investigation report to the magistrate, the statutory power of the magistrate to take cognizance upon receipt of a police report is provided by Section 190(1)(b), which makes Option A correct.

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

Under Section 25(3), before refusing permission for retrenchment the appropriate government must give the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard; this ensures that both the workmen and the employer can present their views and relevant facts.

The refusal must be founded on genuine and adequate reasons supported by relevant material; mere assertion without supporting grounds is not sufficient for a lawful refusal.

The reasons for refusing the permission must be recorded in writing, so that the parties know the basis of the decision and the decision can be subjected to review or challenge if necessary.

Because all three conditions-reasonable opportunity of hearing, genuine and adequate reasons, and written recording of reasons-are required, the correct choice is Option D.

The correct answer is Option C - Immunity from prosecution can be granted only if the assessee makes before the Settlement Commission full and true disclosure of his income, the way income was derived, additional amount of tax payable on such income and other particulars.

• Why Option C is correct: The statutory scheme requires that the assessee makes a full and true disclosure before the Settlement Commission of his income, how it was derived and the additional tax payable; only on the basis of such disclosure can the Commission consider granting immunity from prosecution and related reliefs.

• Why Option A is incorrect: The mere fact that an assessing officer has discovered the income before the assessee's disclosure does not automatically make immunity unavailable. The decisive considerations are whether a full and true disclosure is made to the Commission and whether prosecution has already been lawfully commenced; prior discovery by the assessing officer alone is not the sole disqualifying factor.

• Why Option B is incorrect: Immunity is not available where the assessee refuses to make a full and true disclosure or fails to cooperate with the Commission. Cooperation and complete disclosure are core preconditions for settlement and immunity.

• Why Option D is incorrect: The power to grant immunity principally relates to offences under the Income-tax Act and to closely connected offences as permitted by law. It does not operate as a blanket grant of immunity for all Indian Penal Code offences or for unrelated criminal provisions; extension to particular IPC offences depends on the statutory wording and legal limits, not a general post-2007 expansion.

Key point: The essential and determinative condition for grant of immunity by the Settlement Commission is the full and true disclosure made by the assessee before the Commission.

The correct answer is Option D - Both (A) and (B).

Statement (A) is correct because the statutory scheme for settlement proceedings prevents a party whose earlier settlement has been accepted from obtaining fresh settlement orders that would produce multiplicity of settlements; this operates as a bar on subsequent application by the same person to protect finality and to prevent abuse of the settlement process.

Statement (B) is correct because the law extends that bar to closely connected or associated entities; a company in which the individual has a controlling interest is treated as a related or associated person. Holding more than fifty per cent of the shares normally establishes such control, so that the company is likewise precluded from seeking a separate settlement where the earlier settlement of the individual would make a further settlement impermissible.

Both (A) and (B) are true, and therefore Option D is the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option D - All the above

Each of the three categories may legitimately call for a preliminary inquiry because such an inquiry is a limited verification to decide whether there is sufficient prima facie material to register an FIR and begin a full criminal investigation.

In cases of matrimonial disputes, facts are often entangled with private-family issues and civil remedies; a short inquiry helps determine whether the allegations disclose a clear criminal offence or are essentially non-criminal domestic matters unsuitable for immediate police action.

For allegations of corruption against public officers, preliminary verification is appropriate to test the credibility of the allegation and to check whether any procedural prerequisites (for example, a required sanction or other statutory formalities) exist before initiating formal criminal proceedings.

When information is received after a substantial delay (for example, more than three months), an initial inquiry is useful to examine the reason for delay and the reliability of the complaint; unexplained or excessive delay can undermine credibility and therefore justifies verification before registering an FIR.

Because each statement describes a situation where limited verification is warranted to prevent misuse of the criminal process and to ensure that only matters with some prima facie basis proceed, all three classes are properly covered; therefore Option D is correct.

The correct answer is Option C - Either (A) or (B)

In Pakala Narayanaswami v. King Emperor the law was settled that a confession may consist either of a direct admission of having committed the offence or of an admission of facts which constitute the ingredients of the offence; either form is sufficient to amount to a confession if it shows the accused's culpability.

By direct admission is meant a clear statement that the accused committed the prohibited act; by admission of ingredients is meant disclosure of facts from which the commission of the offence can be inferred (for example, admitting the act, the means used or other constituent facts without using the precise statutory language).

Because the Privy Council recognised both modes as capable of constituting a confession, the correct choice is Either (A) or (B), and therefore Option C is right.

The correct answer is Option A - The neutral model of law

The neutral model views law as an impartial framework that protects individual decision-making and procedural fairness rather than advancing the strategic interests of a particular political actor.

The partisan model treats law primarily as a tool for strengthening party discipline and securing collective party objectives, allowing rules that prioritise party control over individual autonomy.

A useful test is whether a rule protects individual legislative autonomy or instead reinforces party control; protection of autonomy indicates the neutral model, while reinforcement of control indicates the partisan model.

By that criterion, the correct alignment is with the neutral model, because the law operates to safeguard individual autonomy rather than to enhance party authority.

The correct answer is Option D - The evolution of common law doctrine is directed by the partisan interests of judges and is not divorced from political values or ideology.

The neutral model rests on the idea that doctrinal change arises from non-partisan, internal legal processes rather than from judges' personal or political commitments.

If doctrinal change is shown to be directed by the partisan interests of judges, that establishes a causal link between judicial ideology and legal outcomes, which directly contradicts the neutral model's central claim.

Evidence of such directionality means that decisions reflect external political values rather than only neutral legal reasoning; this undercuts the model's explanation for why the law changes and how outcomes are produced.

By contrast, statements that concern only the speed of doctrinal change or that assert the absence of ideological influence do not provide evidence that contradicts the neutral model; they either are irrelevant to neutrality or actually support it.

Therefore Option D most directly weakens the neutral model by showing that partisan motives, not neutral legal forces, can drive doctrinal evolution.

The correct answer is Option A - The morality of aspiration is based on inevitable rules for ordered social living.

• Morality of aspiration denotes the set of ideals and virtues that individuals are encouraged to pursue; it describes what people ought to become rather than prescribing binding commands.

• The phrase "inevitable rules for ordered social living" refers to general, enforceable norms necessary to maintain social order; such rules are distinct from aspirational ideals and are typically the domain of social or legal regulation.

• Because aspirational morality concerns an individual's internal character and personal goals, it is essentially subjective and cannot be turned into universally binding, inevitable rules applicable to all persons.

• The law can regulate and punish external conduct to secure public order, but it cannot compel a person to attain inner perfection or the highest personal excellence; legal compulsion is limited to observable behaviour.

• Consequently, the statement in Option A is untrue, because it incorrectly treats aspirational morality as if it were a set of inevitable, enforceable rules for social order.

The correct answer is Option D - To conduct necessary for social living.

Duty-based morality, or deontological ethics, treats certain actions as morally required because they are obligations, not because of their outcomes.

Such obligations include behaviours like honesty, keeping promises and respect for others, which are necessary to maintain orderly and cooperative interactions among people.

The focus is on acting from moral duty-doing what is right because it is right-rather than on personal survival or merely achieving one's best capacity.

The idea of universalizability (that a moral rule should be acceptable if everyone followed it) supports norms that make social living possible and stable.

Hence, Option D correctly captures the central feature of duty-based moral rules: they prescribe actions required for harmonious social coexistence.

The correct answer is Option B - 51A(g)

• Article 51A sets out the Fundamental Duties; clause (g) states to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
• 51A(f) deals with valuing and preserving the country's rich heritage of composite culture, not environmental protection.
• 51A(h) concerns the development of scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform, not the specific duty to protect the natural environment.
• 51A(d) relates to defending the country and rendering national service when called upon.

Because the environmental duty is explicitly prescribed in 51A(g), Option B is the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option B - Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976

• The Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976 added Entries 17A and 17B to List III of the Seventh Schedule (the Concurrent List), thereby placing those subjects within the concurrent legislative domain.

• Placement in the Concurrent List means both Parliament and state legislatures may legislate on these subjects; in case of conflict, a law made by Parliament prevails as provided by Article 254.

• The amendment that achieved this change was enacted in 1976 and is formally known as the Forty Second Amendment.

The correct answer is Option C - Both (A) and (B)

The Polluter Pays Principle means that the polluter bears the cost of preventing, controlling and remedying environmental harm; this principle has been recognised and applied by the Supreme Court of India in environmental cases such as Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India.

The Precautionary Principle requires that where there is a risk of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent degradation; this principle is reflected in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration and has been adopted into Indian environmental jurisprudence by the courts.

The Sovereign Immunity Principle (the idea that the state is immune from suit) is not treated as a doctrine that shields entities from environmental obligations in Indian environmental law; courts have held that public authorities can be directed to take remedial action and bear liability for environmental harm.

Because both the Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle are part of Indian environmental jurisprudence while Sovereign Immunity Principle is not, Option C is the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option C - Media and Judiciary.

The media performs a crucial watchdog role by bringing information to public attention, promoting transparency, and enabling informed public debate; this exposure creates pressure for corrective action and deters abuses of power.

The independent judiciary enforces legal protections through judicial review and rights-preserving remedies, including writs such as the writ of habeas corpus, mandamus and certiorari, and mechanisms like public interest litigation, which provide judicial protection when rights are violated.

When combined, the free press and an independent judiciary produce effective checks and balances, strengthening accountability and ensuring that violations of rights are exposed and remedied; this complementary functioning is what sustains and protects individual liberty.

Other state organs have roles in governance, but without a watchdog media and a rights-protecting judiciary, those roles are less likely to prevent or correct threats to liberty.

The correct answer is Option D - Both (B) and (C).

The language of Section 311 is expressed using the word "may", which by statutory convention indicates a power that is permissive rather than mandatory.

The use of "may" also means the court has discretionary authority to act; therefore the provision confers judicial discretion to summon or recall witnesses when it is appropriate to do so.

That discretion is not unfettered; it must be exercised judicially and in the interest of justice, and not as a mechanical obligation. By contrast, a mandatory duty would be indicated by language such as "shall", which Section 311 does not use.

Accordingly, the correct characterisation is that the power is both discretionary and permissive, which makes Option D the correct choice.

The correct answer is Option B - An opportunity of rebuttal must be given to the prosecution.

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the court power to summon and enforce attendance of any person whose attendance it considers necessary for just decision of the case; this power may be exercised on an application by the accused.

Fundamental to a criminal trial is the principle of audi alteram partem and the right to a fair trial; when a witness is newly brought into the case by the court, the other side must be given a reasonable opportunity to meet that witness.

Practically, this means the prosecution must be permitted to cross-examine the summoned witness and, if required, to lead rebuttal evidence or make submissions addressing the new testimony so that the evidence can be properly tested.

Accordingly, permitting the prosecution an opportunity of rebuttal is necessary to ensure fairness and to preserve the integrity of the trial; denial of such opportunity may render the trial procedure vitiated. Option B is therefore correct.

The correct answer is Option C - Environment Protection Act, 1986.

• The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 were notified under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which empowers the Central Government to make rules for the protection and improvement of the environment.

• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 deals specifically with measures to prevent and control air pollution and is not the statutory basis for the Noise Rules.

• Hence, the correct statutory basis is the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and not the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.