CLAT 2027 Daily Questions Series: 13th November Legal Reasoning and Current Affairs Answers

CLAT 2027 Daily Questions: Legal Reasoning and CA

CLAT 2027 Daily Current Affairs Questions for November 13

Q1. Why can the sudden exit of a long-serving CEO cause a company's share price to fall?

A. The company's assets disappear
B. Investors become uncertain about the company's future
C. The law forces share prices to fall
D. The stock exchange fixes a lower price

Answer: B

Q2. Which term describes the risk of a company depending heavily on one individual?

A. Key-person risk
B. Systemic risk
C. Exchange rate risk
D. Liquidity risk

Answer: A

Q3. Why do governments restrict the export of advanced chips?

A. To increase company profits
B. To protect national security and prevent sensitive technology from reaching unauthorised users
C. To fix chip prices worldwide
D. To stop all international trade in electronics

Answer: B

Q4. What is the likely effect of an increase in the repo rate?

A. Loans become costlier, which can reduce demand and help control inflation
B. Loans become cheaper
C. Government spending automatically increases
D. Prices of all goods are fixed by law

Answer: A

Q5. Inflation caused by rising food and fuel costs is known as:

A. Demand-pull inflation
B. Supply-side or cost-push inflation
C. Deflation
D. Stagflation

Answer: B

Q6. The RBI's inflation target is 4%. What is its acceptable range?

A. 3% to 5%
B. 2% to 6%
C. 4% to 8%
D. 0% to 4%

Answer: B

Q7. Why would increasing the Lok Sabha's strength to 850 require a constitutional amendment?

A. The Speaker decides the House's strength
B. The Constitution sets a limit on the House's strength
C. The President approves every Lok Sabha seat
D. The Election Commission decides the limit

Answer: B

Q8. Which Article lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution?

A. Article 356
B. Article 352
C. Article 368
D. Article 370

Answer: C

Q9. What majority is generally required for a constitutional amendment under Article 368?

A. A simple majority of members present
B. A majority of the total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting
C. Three-fourths of the total membership
D. Unanimous approval

Answer: B

Q10. Which Article has been interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment?

A. Article 14
B. Article 19(1)(g)
C. Article 21
D. Article 300A

Answer: C

Q11. Section 163 of the BNSS replaced which provision of the old CrPC?

A. Section 144
B. Section 124A
C. Section 302
D. Section 41

Answer: A

Q12. A restriction on a person's movement is challenged as disproportionate. Which principle is being questioned?

A. Restrictions on rights must be reasonable and should not go beyond what is necessary
B. Orders under criminal law cannot be challenged
C. Fundamental rights apply only in States
D. Magistrates have unlimited powers

Answer: A

Q13. What is the main purpose of Article 371 of the Constitution?

A. To impose a National Emergency
B. To provide special provisions for certain States
C. To abolish the Sixth Schedule
D. To regulate elections to Parliament

Answer: B

CLAT 2027 Daily Question Series: Legal Reasoning

Passage 1

Assume that the statements in the passage are the applicable law.

Quashing a case of cruelty that was filed against a man by his wife, the Bombay High Court said that if a married lady is asked to do household work for the family, it cannot be said that she is treated “like a maid servant”. The Court was hearing an application by the husband and his parents seeking that proceedings against them be quashed.

A First Information Report (“FIR”) was filed against the trio in September 2020, around nine months after the marriage, alleging that they hounded the woman for money to purchase a car, harassed her mentally and physically, and treated her like a maid servant. Examining the evidence, the Court found that there was no merit to the woman’s allegations. The Court said that though the FIR stated that she was treated properly for about a month and then “like a maid servant”, there were no details of what this meant.

The Court added: “If a married lady is asked to do household work for the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant.”

The Court held that the mere use of the words “harassment mentally and physically” in the FIR is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), which punishes the husband or a relative of the husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty in any way.

It is interesting to note that Section 498A of the IPC also provides that if a married woman is actually treated like a ‘maid servant’, it would be an offence under that Section.

Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “If Wife Is Asked To Do Household Work, Does Not Mean She Is Treated Like Maid: Bombay HC”, The Wire.

Q1. Ashwin and Ashima were married in February 2020. In March 2020, Ashwin asked Ashima to take care of all their household work, such as cooking, cleaning, and other domestic chores, as he was very busy with his professional responsibilities. Ashima claims that this amounts to treating her like a maidservant and constitutes an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Applying the Bombay High Court decision, is she likely to succeed?

A. Yes, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.

B. No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.

C. Yes, since Ashwin had asked Ashima to do household work for themselves as well as others.

D. No, since treating a married woman like a maidservant would not amount to an offence under that Section.

Answer: B. No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.

Q2. In April 2020, Ashwin’s friend Rakesh visits Ashwin and Ashima’s home and stays with them for a few days. During his visit, he is very mean to Ashima and uses abusive language with her. He also throws a plate at her one evening when he is unhappy with the meal she has prepared. Ashima now claims that Rakesh has committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Is she likely to succeed?

A. No, since Rakesh’s actions were perfectly justifiable for a man who does not get a well-cooked meal.

B. Yes, since Rakesh’s use of abusive language and throwing the plate at Ashima clearly amount to cruelty.

C. No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.

D. Yes, since Rakesh was staying at Ashwin and Ashima’s home at the time of the incident.

Answer: C. No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.

Q3. Frustrated and upset with her marriage, Ashima applies for and is granted a divorce from Ashwin in November 2020. Since she and Ashwin had been friends for many years before they got married, she stays in touch with him. She moves into her own apartment and starts going to the office regularly at a new job. Ashwin is very upset about this and starts treating Ashima very cruelly. Ashima again claims that Ashwin has committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Is she right?

A. Yes, since Ashwin has, as we are told, treated her cruelly.

B. Yes, since Ashwin has been her husband.

C. No, since Ashwin was understandably upset at Ashima’s behaviour.

D. No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.

Answer: D. No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.

Q4. Assume that the government passes a new law in January 2021, called the Protection of Rights of Married Women Act, 2021 (the “PoMWA”), according to which asking a married woman to take care of household chores would be an offence. The PoMWA also provides that if a man commits such an offence, he would have to pay compensation to the woman.

The PoMWA even applies to actions that were committed at any time in the three years prior to the new law coming into force, and even if the man and woman involved in the matter were no longer married. Upon hearing about this new law, Ashima once again alleges that Ashwin has committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, and claims compensation under the PoMWA for his actions. Is she right, and will she succeed?

A. Ashima is right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, but she will not get compensation under the PoMWA.

B. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, but she is not right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

C. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, and she is also right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

D. Ashima will neither get compensation under the PoMWA, nor is she right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

Answer: B. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, but she is not right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

Q5. Assume that in March 2021, the government changes Section 498A of the IPC. The effect of this change is that asking a married woman to do household chores — even for their own family — by herself would be considered cruelty, and therefore, an offence under the Section.

Some days after this change comes into effect, Shamita, Ashima’s friend at work, tells her that her husband has been forcing her to do all the household work by herself. Ashima tells Shamita that her husband’s actions would amount to an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, even though Ashima herself has been unsuccessful in having Ashwin convicted under that Section in the past. Is Ashima’s advice to Shamita correct?

A. Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita’s husband’s actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A.

B. No, since Ashima has been unsuccessful in having Ashwin convicted under that Section in the past.

C. Yes, since the passing of the Protection of Married Women Act has resulted in Shamita’s husband’s actions being made illegal.

D. No, since Ashima is only Shamita’s friend, and only the married woman herself can file a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC.

Answer: A. Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita’s husband’s actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A.

Passage 2

Parliament passed the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 (the “Act”) in March 2022. The legislation enables police and central investigating agencies to collect, store, and analyse the measurements of arrested persons. Until rules are notified, an Act cannot be implemented or come into force. On September 19, 2022, the Ministry of Home Affairs (the “MHA”) notified the rules (the “Rules”) under the Act.

The Act empowers a Magistrate to direct any person to give measurements to the police, which till now was reserved for convicts and those involved in heinous crimes. It also enables police personnel of the rank of Head Constable or above to take measurements of any person who resists or refuses to give measurements when ordered to do so by a Magistrate.

As per the Rules, “measurements” mean finger-impressions, palm-print, footprint, photographs, iris and retina scans, physical and biological samples and their analysis, behavioural attributes including signatures, and handwriting. Though it has not been specified, analysis of biological samples could also include DNA profiling.

However, the Rules state that measurements of those detained under preventive Sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”) shall not be taken unless such person is at that time charged or under arrest in connection with any other offence punishable under any other law. Measures can also be taken under the Rules if a person has been ordered to give security for his good behaviour for maintaining peace under Section 117 of the CrPC for a proceeding under that Section.

Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Explained | Rules for identifying criminals”, by Vijaita Singh, The Hindu.

Q1. Bhargesh is arrested by the police on April 11, 2022, on suspicion of having committed a series of minor thefts. During their investigation, the police find some fingerprints at the crime scenes, and on April 12, 2022, they tell Bhargesh that he must provide his fingerprints to them so that they can check whether they match the fingerprints from the crime scenes. When Bhargesh refuses, the police tell him that he has no choice but to provide his measurements, as the Act had been passed by Parliament the previous month. Was Bhargesh bound to provide his finger impressions under the Act?

A. No, since Bhargesh had only been arrested, and not convicted.

B. Yes, since Bhargesh was under arrest.

C. No, since the Rules had not yet been notified.

D. Yes, since finger impressions are included within the definition of “measurements” under the Act.

Answer: C. No, since the Rules had not yet been notified.

Q2. Bhargesh is later released by the police because they are unable to find enough evidence to make a strong case against him. On October 5, 2022, the police receive a complaint alleging that Bhargesh had beaten up his neighbour and caused the neighbour severe injuries. They ask the local Magistrate to issue an order directing Bhargesh to provide the police with his blood samples, so that they can match them against some blood stains that were found on the neighbour’s clothes. The Magistrate issues the order, but Bhargesh refuses to provide the blood samples. Is Bhargesh bound to provide his blood samples to the police under the Act?

A. Yes, since the crime that Bhargesh was accused of was very serious.

B. Yes, since the Magistrate had passed an order directing him to do so.

C. Yes, since Bhargesh had already been arrested in connection with another crime in the past.

D. Yes, since the police needed the blood samples to verify Bhargesh’s involvement in the crime.

Answer: B. Yes, since the Magistrate had passed an order directing him to do so.

Q3. On October 15, 2022, the police detain Bhargesh under a preventive section of the CrPC since they believe that he had plans to disturb the public peace during a festival day. They then tell Bhargesh that he must provide his measurements to them for their records. Bhargesh refuses again. Is Bhargesh bound to provide his photographs to the police under the Act?

A. No, since he was not charged or under arrest in connection with any other offence at the time.

B. No, since that would violate Bhargesh’s right to privacy.

C. Yes, since the police had detained Bhargesh under a preventive Section of the CrPC.

D. Yes, since there was a high likelihood that Bhargesh would disturb the public peace on a festival day.

Answer: A. No, since he was not charged or under arrest in connection with any other offence at the time.

Q4. Two days later, the police obtain an order from the Magistrate directing Bhargesh to provide them with his photographs. As Bhargesh continues to refuse to provide his photographs, a regular police constable forces him to stand still and takes his photographs. Bhargesh files a case in court, claiming that the constable’s actions violate the Act. Will he succeed?

A. Yes, since Bhargesh had been detained under a preventive section of the CrPC.

B. Yes, since only police personnel of the rank of Head Constable or above can take measurements of any person who resists or refuses to give measurements when ordered to do so by a Magistrate.

C. No, since the Magistrate had issued an order directing him to provide his photographs to the police.

D. No, since the police constable was only performing his duty.

Answer: B. Yes, since only police personnel of the rank of Head Constable or above can take measurements of any person who resists or refuses to give measurements when ordered to do so by a Magistrate.

Q5. The police release Bhargesh, but to ensure that he does not disturb the public peace, they ask the Magistrate to issue an order under Section 117 of the CrPC, directing Bhargesh to provide a security of Rs 1,00,000 for his good behaviour and to ensure he maintains the peace, which the Magistrate refuses. The police now tell Bhargesh he must provide them with his iris and retina scans. Is Bhargesh required to do so?

A. No, since a person against whom an order has been issued under Section 117 of the CrPC cannot be made to give their measurements to the police.

B. Yes, since a person against whom an order has been issued under Section 117 of the CrPC can be made to give their measurements to the police.

C. Yes, since Bhargesh had been detained under other preventive Sections of the CrPC in the past.

D. No, since the Magistrate had not issued the order.

Answer: D. No, since the Magistrate had not issued the order.