HomeLegal ReasoningQuestions to Practice Based on Legal Passage for CLAT 2022

Questions to Practice Based on Legal Passage for CLAT 2022

Questions to Practice Based on Legal Passage for CLAT 2022

Questions to Practice Based on Legal Passage for CLAT 2020

​​ PASSAGE 1

Article 30(1) provides that all minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and Art. 30(2) enjoins the State, in granting aid to educational institutions not to discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language. Clause (2) is only a phase of the non-discrimination clause of the Constitution and does not derogate from the provisions made in clause (1). The clause is moulded in terms negative : the State is thereby enjoined not to discriminate in granting aid to educational institutions on the ground that the management of the institution is in the hands of a minority, religious or linguistic, but the form is not susceptible of the inference that the State is competent otherwise to discriminate so as to impose restrictions upon the substance of the right to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities, religious or linguistic. Unlike Art. 19, the fundamental freedom under clause (1) of Art. 30, is absolute in terms; it is not made subject to any reasonable restrictions of the nature the fundamental freedoms enunciated in Art. 19 may be subjected to. All minorities, linguistic or religious have by Art. 30(1) an absolute right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; and any law or executive direction which seeks to infringe the substance of that right under Art. 30(1) would to that extent be void. This, however, is not to say that it is not open to the State to impose regulations upon the exercise of this right. The fundamental freedom is to establish and to administer educational institutions : it is a right to establish and administer what are in truth educational institutions, institutions which cater to the educational needs of the citizens, or sections thereof. Regulation made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like may undoubtedly be imposed. Such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed : they secure the proper functioning of the institution, in matters educational.

In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, was considered as under:- It was therefore held that notwithstanding the absolute terms in which the fundamental freedom under Art. 30(1) was guaranteed, it was open to the state by legislation or by executive direction to impose reasonable regulation. The Court did not, however, lay down any test of reasonableness of the regulation. The Court did not decide that public or national interest was the sole measure or test of reasonableness : it also did not decide that a regulation would be deemed unreasonable only if it was totally destructive of the right of the minority to administer educational institution. No general principle on which reasonableness or otherwise of a regulation may be tested was sought to be laid down by the Court. The Kerala Education Bill case, therefore, is not an authority for the proposition submitted by the Additional Solicitor General that all regulative measures which are not destructive or annihilative of the character of the​​ institution established by the minority, provided the regulations are in the national or public interest, are valid."

QUESTIONS

  • Which of the following article of the Constitution is not subject to the reasonable restrictions?

  • Article 19

  • Article 30

  • Article 21

  • All the above

Ans. b

Rationale: Unlike Art. 19, the fundamental freedom under clause (1) of Art. 30, is absolute in terms; it is not made subject to any reasonable restrictions of the nature the fundamental freedoms enunciated in Art. 19 may be subjected to.

  • State government passed a law that all the mother saa of muslim minorities shall be​​ prohibited to teach urdu and shall teach the normal CBSE course in hindi language. Decide the action of State government according to the passage.

  • The state can do so as it is the sovereign

  • The state cannot do as mother saa are protected under the constitution

  • The state can do so as all schools should teach the same thing

  • None of the above

Ans. b

Rationale: All minorities, linguistic or religious have by Art. 30(1) an absolute right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; and any law or executive direction which seeks to infringe the substance of that right under Art. 30(1) would to that extent be void.

  • What do you understand by Article 30 (2) of the Constitution?

  • State can grant financial aid only to institutions having common curriculum

  • State can grant financial aid to any institution

  • Both a and b

  • None of the above

Ans. b

Rationale: Art. 30(2) enjoins the State, in granting aid to educational institutions not to discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

  • What kinds of restrictions can be imposed under Article 30 of the Constitution?

  • Discipline and health

  • ​​ Sanitation and morality

  • Public order and efficiency

  • All the above

Ans. d

Rationale: Regulation made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like may undoubtedly be​​ imposed. Such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed

  • Who have a right under Article 30 of the Constitution?

  • Linguistic minorities

  • Religious minorities

  • Both a and b

  • None of the above

Ans. c

Rationale: All minorities, linguistic or religious have by Art. 30(1) an absolute right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; and any law or executive direction which seeks to infringe the substance of that right under Art. 30(1) would to that extent be void.

PASSAGE 2

The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth. Notwithstanding the same, great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of cross-examination, the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however, has always to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite. In most cases, however, such statements are made orally before death ensues and is reduced to writing by someone like a Magistrate or a doctor or a police officer. When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a Magistrate absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a Magistrate, if available for recording the statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of​​ each particular case. What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even without examination by the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and therefore the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise.​​ Under clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a statement made by a person who is dead, as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death is a relevant fact in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question, and such a statement is relevant whether the person who made it was or was not, at the time when it was made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.​​ 

QUESTIONS

  • What​​ do you​​ understand by the term ‘dying declaration’?

  • ​​ Statement made under the apprehension of death

  • Statement made on death bed

  • Both a and b

  • None of the above

Ans. c

Rationale: The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth.

  • Under Indian Evidence Act no statement is admissible unless it is cross-examined. Can there be any exceptions to this rule?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Not sure

  • Both a and b

Ans. a

Rationale: The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with.

  • A was kidnapped and blindfolded.​​ C found A on the road in a vegetative condition and he immediately unfolded his blind and gave him water. Blood was flowing all over his body. Before death A made a statement that he saw B striking a knife in his stomach which caused so much loss of blood. Whether A’s statement is admissible as dying declaration

  • Yes as a person cannot lie on death bed

  • No as A could not have known the killer

  • Yes as A was conscious when knife was struck in his stomach

  • No as statement was made to C and not to a police officer

Ans. b

Rationale: The court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant.

  • B was raped and killed by C and she was thrown in a well. A rescued her and she was taken to hospital but she could not survive. Before her death she pointed at B on the question ‘who did this to you’. Decide whether this shall be considered as her dying declaration?

  • Yes as she sufficiently told who was the accused

  • No as it is necessary that dying declaration should be oral or written

  • Not sure

  • None of the above​​ 

Ans. a

Rationale: A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite.

  • A made a dying declaration to a lunatic person. Will it be admissible?

  • Yes as it can be made to anyone

  • No as it should be made a sound person

  • Yes as he is not a minor

  • No as dying declaration should be made only to magistrate

Ans. b

Rationale: What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind.

Visit our complete collection of legal reasoning questions and posts.

Read our legal reasoning post on void agreements and the practice questions here

Read CLATapult’s post on offer and acceptance here. Also, try their mocks for more legal reasoning practice questions.

Visit CLATalogue for more legal reasoning practice questions for CLAT 2022.

First published on August 28, 2020. 

Aditya Anand
Aditya is 93.1% sure that he knows Japanese. We think he speaks Japanese in Bhojpuri accent.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here