Daily Passage Test for CLAT - May 19 MCQs & solutions Free
MCQ Practice Test & Solutions: Daily Passage Test for CLAT - May 19 (5 Questions)
You can prepare effectively for CLAT Daily Passage Practice for CLAT with this dedicated MCQ Practice Test (available with solutions) on the important topic of "Daily Passage Test for CLAT - May 19". These 5 questions have been designed by the experts with the latest curriculum of CLAT 2026, to help you master the concept.
Test Highlights:
- - Format: Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ)
- - Duration: 10 minutes
- - Number of Questions: 5
Sign up on EduRev for free to attempt this test and track your preparation progress.
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Supreme Court admitted a petition filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) seeking to exempt armed forces personnel from the ambit of a Constitution Bench judgement of 2018 that decriminalised adultery. One of the chief reasons given by the government for seeking exemption is, incidentally, that there will always be a concern in the minds of the Army personnel who are operating far away from their families under challenging conditions about the family indulging in untoward activity.
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from, 'Adultery can't be decriminalised for armed forces, govt. tells SC', The Hindu, January 13, 2021]
Q. What is the main argument presented by the government in its petition to the Supreme Court?
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
Detailed Solution: Question 1
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Supreme Court admitted a petition filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) seeking to exempt armed forces personnel from the ambit of a Constitution Bench judgement of 2018 that decriminalised adultery. One of the chief reasons given by the government for seeking exemption is, incidentally, that there will always be a concern in the minds of the Army personnel who are operating far away from their families under challenging conditions about the family indulging in untoward activity.
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from, 'Adultery can't be decriminalised for armed forces, govt. tells SC', The Hindu, January 13, 2021]
Q. How does Article 33 of the Constitution relate to the argument made by the government in the petition?
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
Detailed Solution: Question 2
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Supreme Court admitted a petition filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) seeking to exempt armed forces personnel from the ambit of a Constitution Bench judgement of 2018 that decriminalised adultery. One of the chief reasons given by the government for seeking exemption is, incidentally, that there will always be a concern in the minds of the Army personnel who are operating far away from their families under challenging conditions about the family indulging in untoward activity.
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from, 'Adultery can't be decriminalised for armed forces, govt. tells SC', The Hindu, January 13, 2021]
Q. During the lockdown in June 2020, Akhil, who had retired from the Army the previous year, discovered his wife having an extramarital affair with Mahesh. Can Mahesh be charged with adultery if the SC states that armed personnel are not covered by the 2018 judgment decriminalizing adultery?
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
Detailed Solution: Question 3
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Supreme Court admitted a petition filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) seeking to exempt armed forces personnel from the ambit of a Constitution Bench judgement of 2018 that decriminalised adultery. One of the chief reasons given by the government for seeking exemption is, incidentally, that there will always be a concern in the minds of the Army personnel who are operating far away from their families under challenging conditions about the family indulging in untoward activity.
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from, 'Adultery can't be decriminalised for armed forces, govt. tells SC', The Hindu, January 13, 2021]
Q. The Indian Constitution recognizes the right to equality as a basic right, but it is constrained by other fundamental rights clauses. An Indian citizen and retired Army member who was upset by the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) request that adultery not be decriminalized for Army members petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that doing so would violate their right to equality. Decide.
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
Detailed Solution: Question 4
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The Supreme Court admitted a petition filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) seeking to exempt armed forces personnel from the ambit of a Constitution Bench judgement of 2018 that decriminalised adultery. One of the chief reasons given by the government for seeking exemption is, incidentally, that there will always be a concern in the minds of the Army personnel who are operating far away from their families under challenging conditions about the family indulging in untoward activity.
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from, 'Adultery can't be decriminalised for armed forces, govt. tells SC', The Hindu, January 13, 2021]
Q. When a husband discovered his wife having an affair, he decided to ask for divorce. The wife counters that since adultery is no longer a crime, he cannot seek a divorce as a result. Decide.
The court referred the case to the Chief Justice of India to pass appropriate orders to form a five-judge Bench to clarify the impact of the 2018 judgement on the armed forces. The government said in the petition that personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force were a distinct class. They were governed by special legislations, the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.
Adultery amounted to an unbecoming conduct and a violation of discipline under these three Acts. These special laws imposed restrictions on the fundamental rights of the personnel, who function in peculiar situation requiring utmost discipline. The three laws were protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, which allowed the government to modify the fundamental rights of the armed forces personnel.
The judgement of 2018 created instability. It allowed personnel charged with carrying on an adulterous or illicit relationship to take cover under the judgement. In cases of adultery, even if there is a charge against the accused, an argument can be raised that we are circumventing the law and what could not be done directly is being done directly through these Acts, the Ministry said. Discipline necessary for the performance of duty, crucial for national safety, would break down. The provisions of the Acts should be allowed to continue to govern the personnel as a distinct class, irrespective of the 2018 judgement.
It said the court would not, at the time, have been apprised of the different circumstances under which the armed forces operated. Besides, the government pointed out that unlike Section 497, the provisions of the three Acts did not differentiate between a man and a woman if they were guilty of an offence. Dehors 497, the Army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship, it said. The government also highlighted that the court, despite striking down adultery as a crime, had held that it was undoubtedly a moral wrong qua the family and the spouse. The judgement had further recognised that civil remedy existed as adultery remained a ground for divorce.
Detailed Solution: Question 5
