CLAT 2027 Daily Questions Series (22nd September): Legal Reasoning and Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers

CLAT 2027 Daily Questions: Logical & Legal Reasoning

CLAT 2027 Current Affairs from Daily News: September 22, 2026

Q1: The right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is guaranteed under:

A. Article 19

B. Article 21

C. Article 22(1)

D. Article 32

Answer: C

Q2: An arrested person must be produced before a Magistrate within:

A. 12 hours

B. 24 hours

C. 48 hours

D. 72 hours

Answer: B

Q3: Release for violation of Article 22(1) was described by the Supreme Court as:

A. Bail

B. Parole

C. Release from illegal detention

D. Anticipatory bail

Answer: C

Q4: Double jeopardy is protected under:

A. Article 20(1)

B. Article 20(2)

C. Article 21

D. Article 22

Answer: B

Q5: The accused in the Dharmasthala case was acquitted by:

A. Karnataka Police Court

B. CBI Court

C. High Court

D. NIA Court

Answer: B

Q6: The fresh investigation has to be completed within:

A. One month

B. Three months

C. Six months

D. One year

Answer: B

Q7. Which judgment was referred to by the Supreme Court while applying the proportionality test in the methanol case?

A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

B. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

C. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

D. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Answer: B

Q8. The Maharashtra methanol rules were held to violate which constitutional provisions?

A. Articles 19 and 21

B. Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)

C. Articles 20 and 22

D. Articles 15 and 16

Answer: B

Q9. Maharashtra's Poisons Rules, 1972 were framed under which central law?

A. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

B. Poisons Act, 1919

C. Essential Commodities Act, 1955

D. Factories Act, 1948

Answer: B

Q10. When will the India-New Zealand FTA come into effect?

A. September 30, 2026

B. October 20, 2026

C. November 4, 2026

D. December 1, 2026

Answer: B

Q11. Who is India's Union Commerce Minister mentioned in the report?

A. Nirmala Sitharaman

B. S. Jaishankar

C. Piyush Goyal

D. Nitin Gadkari

Answer: C

Q12. What was the bilateral trade between India and New Zealand in FY 2024-25?

A. $1.3 million

B. $1.3 billion

C. $13 billion

D. $20 billion

Answer: B

Q13. The P4M initiative was founded by leaders from which group?

A. USA, Russia, China and India

B. European Union, Brazil, Kenya and Canada

C. G7 nations only

D. SAARC nations

Answer: B

Q14. Who attended the P4M meeting on India's behalf?

A. Nirmala Sitharaman

B. S. Jaishankar

C. Piyush Goyal

D. Rajnath Singh

Answer: B

Q15. Which of the following is not mentioned as a grouping India is part of?

A. BRICS

B. G20

C. G-4

D. ASEAN

Answer: D

Daily Practice Questions for CLAT 2027 Legal Reasoning

Below are two passages from CLAT previous years’ question papers. Each passage is followed by its respective MCQ.

Passage 1

Good governance is only in the hands of good men. No doubt, what is good or bad is not for the court to decide, but the court can always indicate the constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance, and purity in administration, reminding the constitutional functionaries to preserve, protect, and promote the same. That ethos is the unwritten words in our Constitution. However, as the Constitution makers stated, there is a presumption that the Prime Minister/Chief Minister would be well advised and guided by such unwritten yet constitutional principles as well. According to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, such things were only to be left to the good sense of the Prime Minister, and for that matter, the Chief Minister of State, since it was expected that the two great constitutional functionaries would not dare to do any infamous thing by inducting an otherwise unfit person to the Council of Ministers. It appears, over a period of time, at least in some cases, it was only a story of great expectations. Some of the instances pointed out in the writ petition indicate that Dr. Ambedkar and other great visionaries in the Constituent Assembly have been bailed out. Qualification has been wrongly understood as the mere absence of prescribed disqualification. Hence, it has become the bounden duty of the court to remind the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the 79. State of their duty to act in accordance with the constitutional aspirations. No doubt, it is not for the court to issue any direction to the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, as to the manner in which they should exercise their power while selecting the colleagues in the Council of Ministers. That is the constitutional prerogative of those functionaries who are called upon to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. But it is the prophetic duty of this Court to remind the key duty holders about their role in working the Constitution. Hence, I am of the firm view that the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the State, who themselves have taken an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to discharge their duties faithfully and conscientiously, will be well advised to consider avoiding any person in the Council of Ministers, against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court in respect of offences involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically referred to in Chapter III of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. (416 words) [Extract from the Supreme Court Judgment Manoj Narula v. Union of India]

Q1. According to the passage, the Court cannot decide what is "good" or "bad" governance, but it can:

(A) Disqualify Ministers from holding office

(B) Indicate constitutional ethos on governance and remind functionaries of their duty

(C) Frame rules on qualifications of Ministers

(D) Amend the Constitution to insert explicit standards of morality

Q2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar believed that the working of the Constitution ultimately depends on:

(A) The rigidity of the constitutional text

(B) The good sense and integrity of those who are going to administer this constitution

(C) The presence of a strong opposition

(D) Judicial intervention in governance

Q3. The Court, while respecting the prerogative of the Prime Minister and Chief Minister to select Ministers, emphasized that:

(A) They should avoid appointing persons against whom criminal charges involving moral turpitude are framed

(B) They must appoint Ministers strictly from the ruling party only

(C) They should consult the Supreme Court before finalizing appointments

(D) They are bound to appoint only members of the Lok Sabha/Legislative Assembly

Q4. What role does the Court assume, as described in the passage, regarding governance and appointments to the Council of Ministers?

(A) Judicial review of all ministerial appointments

(B) Prophetic duty to remind key functionaries of their constitutional role

(C) Power to veto ministerial selections made by the Prime Minister

(D) Directing Parliament to amend the law on disqualification

Q5. Who are the constitutional functionaries this passage primarily refers to?

(A) Council of Ministers

(B) Prime Minister and Council of Ministers

(C) Chief Minister and Council of Ministers

(D) Prime Minister and Chief Minister

Q6. Who, according to the above passage, shall not be appointed as a Minister?

(A) Against whom charges have been framed in a court of law

(B) Against whom charges involving moral turpitude have been framed in a court of law

(C) Against whom charges have been proved in a court of law

(D) Against whom a case is pending in a court of law

Passage 2

The recent Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) affirmed that a Governor cannot exercise an absolute or "pocket" veto on bills, holding that if assent is withheld, the bill must be returned to the legislature "as soon as possible" for reconsideration, with the Governor having no discretion to withhold assent again. The court established that inaction or indefinite delay is illegal and unconstitutional, prescribing timelines for the Governor's decision and even "deeming assent" on pending bills in the Tamil Nadu case, establishing a critical precedent for judicial review of gubernatorial powers. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Governor's power to an absolute or “pocket” veto, which allows for bills to be indefinitely delayed. If a Governor withholds assent to a bill, they are constitutionally obligated to return it to the State Assembly for reconsideration, according to the proviso in Article 200 of the Constitution. If the State Assembly re-enacts a bill after it has been returned by the Governor, the Governor has no choice but to give assent to it and cannot withhold it for a second time. The Court held that indefinitely delaying or remaining silent on bills is unconstitutional and that Governors must act “as soon as possible" on bills. The judgment expanded the scope of judicial review by setting timelines for the Governor's actions on bills, allowing state governments to approach courts if these timelines are breached. In the case of Tamil Nadu, the Court used its powers under Article 142 to "deem assent” on the long-pending bills, which had the effect of making any subsequent decision by the President on those bills void. (276 words) [Extracted with edits & revisions from “The Hindu”, dated 8th April 2025]

Q1. The Legislative Assembly of State X passes a controversial bill and sends it to the Governor for assent. The Governor, strongly disagreeing with the bill's provisions, decides to neither give assent nor return the bill, hoping it will be forgotten over time. Which of the following statements accurately describes the legal position of the Governor's action?

(A) The Governor's action is a legitimate exercise of a "pocket veto", allowing for indefinite delay of bills

(B) The Governor's inaction is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the power to an absolute or "pocket" veto, and they are obligated to return the bill "as soon as possible" if assent is withheld

(C) The Governor is within their rights to delay the bill indefinitely as long as they do not explicitly reject it, reflecting the true spirit of gubernatorial discretion

(D) The bill will automatically lapse after six months of gubernatorial inaction, making the delay a de facto rejection

Q2. Governor Y receives a bill from the State Assembly and, after careful consideration, decides to withhold assent, promptly returning it with a message for reconsideration. The State Assembly then re-enacts the bill without any change and sends it back to Governor Y. What is the constitutional obligation of Governor Y at this point?

(A) Governor Y has no choice but to give assent to the re-enacted bill, as the Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor cannot withhold assent for a second time

(B) Governor Y can again withhold assent if they continue to disagree with the bill's content, sending it back for further reconsideration

(C) Governor Y can refer the bill to the President of India for a final decision, exercising a higher discretionary power

(D) Governor Y can dissolve the State Assembly for consistently passing erroneous bills

Q3. After the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), a State Governor holds a bill for eight months without taking any action—neither assenting nor returning it. The State Government believes that this delay is unconstitutional. Based on the precedent set by the judgment, what recourse is available to the State Government?

(A) The State Government must wait for a full year before any action can be taken, as gubernatorial delays are typically permitted for this duration

(B) The bill automatically lapses after six months of inaction, making any further action by the State Government unnecessary

(C) The State Government's only recourse is to re-enact the bill, which would then compel the Governor to act

(D) The State Government can approach the courts, as the judgment had prescribed timelines for the Governor's actions on bills since indefinite delay was construed unconstitutional

Q4. In a situation mirroring the Tamil Nadu case, a Supreme Court bench is reviewing several instances where a particular Governor has indefinitely delayed assent on multiple bills passed by the State Assembly, despite Constitutional obligations. If the Supreme Court decides to follow the precedent established in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) regarding pending bills, what would be a likely outcome for these delayed bills?

(A) The Supreme Court would order the Governor to explicitly reject all the delayed bills

(B) The Supreme Court would direct the State Assembly to conduct a public referendum on each delayed bill

(C) The Supreme Court could deem assent on the pending bills, establishing a critical precedent for judicial review of gubernatorial powers in such cases, as it did in the Tamil Nadu case

(D) The Supreme Court would advise the Governor to seek legal counsel and then reevaluate each bill individually without a set timeline

Q5. A newly appointed Governor publicly declares that he intends to use his discretion to permanently halt any legislation he deems inappropriate, by simply not acting on the bills, citing an inherent gubernatorial power. How does this declaration align with the constitutional interpretation provided by the Supreme Court of India?

(A) The Governor's declaration is consistent with the broad discretionary powers traditionally afforded to Governors, allowing them significant influence over state legislation

(B) The Governor's declaration is valid only for non-money bills, as money bills have different Constitutional protocols

(C) The Governor's declaration is partially valid, as indefinite delay is permissible only if the State Assembly is not in session

(D) The Governor's declaration is unconstitutional; the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Governor’s power to an absolute or "pocket" veto

Q6. What are the three primary courses of action for a Governor when a Bill is enacted by the State Assembly and sent to him/her for his/her assent? Which option correctly lists these three courses?

(A)(i) Give assent, (ii) Veto absolutely, or (iii) Refer to the Supreme Court

(B) (i) Give assent, (ii) Withhold assent (allowing the Bill to fail, unless the proviso is followed), or (iii) Recommend amendments

(C) (i) Give assent, (ii) Withhold assent (with the option to return for reconsideration), or (iii) Reserve for the consideration of the President

(D) (i) Give assent, (ii) Return for reconsideration, or (iii) Refer to the Union Government

Daily Practice Questions for CLAT 2027 Logical Reasoning

Candidates can solve the questions given below based on the logical reasoning section from last year’s question paper.

Passage 1

In a small town lived a close-knit family where every relation could be expressed through simple symbols. For instance, when they said A × B, it meant A is the father of B, while A + B meant A is the mother of B. The younger ones were often introduced with A + B, meaning A was the daughter of B, and the bond of brotherhood was shown by A-B (A is the brother of B). One day, the children in the family turned these symbols into a playful code. Instead of introducing their parents and siblings in words, they spoke only in symbols. “Look," giggled little Meena, "M + N + O!” Everyone laughed because they knew it meant Meena was the daughter of N, and N was the mother of O, making her O's sister. What started as a code soon became a family game, making the bonds of father, mother, daughter, and brother not just relations, but symbols of love and togetherness. (165 words)

Q1. If 'P+ Q-R+T, how is T related to P?

(A) Aunt

(B) Father

(C) Grandmother

(D) None of these

Q2. Which of the following means that R is the wife of P?

(A) PXR-Q-T

(B) P+T+R-Q

(C) P+R-Q+T

(D) PxT-Q+R

Q3. If 'P x T + Q + R ', how is R related to P?

(A) Daughter

(B) Husband

(C) Son-in-law

(D) None of these

Q4. If 'P+R − Q x T, how is P related to T?

(A) Grandmother

(B) Mother-in-law

(C) Sister

(D) Grandfather

Q5. If R+Q + Rx T, how is T related to Q?

(A) Aunt

(B) Sister

(C) Brother

(D) Grandson

Q6. If R-P + J x Q, how is J related to R?

(A) Son

(B) Nephew

(C) Niece

(D) Grandson

Passage 2

Four teams – Red (R), Blue (B), Green (G), and Yellow (Y) - are competing in the final four rounds of the Inter-School Science Olympiad, labeled Round A, Round B, Round C, and Round D. Each round consists of one match between two teams, and every team plays exactly two matches. No team plays the same opponent more than once. The final schedule must adhere to the following rules:

• Rule 1 (Consecutive Play): The Green team (G) must play their two matches in consecutive rounds.

• Rule 2 (Fixed Appearance): The Yellow team (Y) must play in Round B.

• Rule 3 (Positional Constraint): The Red team (R) must play against the Blue team (B) in a round that is immediately before a round in which neither R nor B is playing.

• Rule 4 (Timing): The Blue team's (B) first match must occur in an earlier round than the Green team's (G) first match.

• Rule 5 (Opponent Link): The team that plays against the Red team (R) in the round that is not against the Blue team (B) is the same team that plays in Round D.

(193 words)

Q1. Determining the Green Team's Schedule

Considering Rules 1 and 2, which of the following pairs of rounds contains the Green team's two matches?

(A) Round A and Round D

(B) Round B and Round C

(C) Round C and Round D

(D) Round A and Round B

Q2. Applying the Positional Constraint

Based on all the rules, particularly Rule 3, which of the following matches must be scheduled for Round A?

(A) Red vs. Green

(B) Red vs. Yellow

(C) Red vs. Blue

(D) Blue vs. Yellow

Q3. Identifying the Blue Team's First Opponent

Who is the Blue team's first opponent in the tournament?

(A) Green

(B) Red

(C) Yellow

(D) The opponent cannot be determined

Q4. Finding the Match in Round C

What is the match scheduled for Round C?

(A) Red vs. Green

(B) Green vs. Blue

(C) Blue vs. Yellow

(D) Red vs. Yellow

Q5. Identifying the Teams Excluded from a Round

Which pair of rounds contains matches where the Yellow team does not participate?

(A) Round A and Round C

(B) Round A and Round D

(C) Round B and Round C

(D) Round C and Round D

Q6. Team Opponent Check

Which team does the Yellow team NOT play against over the course of the four rounds?

(A) Red

(B) Blue

(C) Green

(D) The Yellow team plays against all other teams

Q7. Assessing a Rule Violation

If the match in Round D was (Blue vs. Yellow), which of the original rules would be violated by this schedule change?

(A) Rule 1 (Consecutive Play)

(B) Rule 3 (Positional Constráint)

(C) Rule 4 (Timing)

(D) Rule 5 (Opponent Link)