CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper with Solutions - Download Answer Key PDF

CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper with Answer Key & Detailed Solutions PDF

You may also check the previous year's question paper with detailed solutions:

• CLAT PG 2024 Question Paper with Detailed Solutions
• CLAT PG 2023 Question Paper with Detailed Solutions
• CLAT PG 2022 Question Paper with Detailed Solutions
• CLAT PG 2021 Question Paper with Detailed Solutions

Overview of the CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper:

1. The CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper was the first of its kind after the CLAT consortium announced significant modifications to the layout of the paper. The paper was extensive, and even though it only had 120 questions, it was tough to complete within the time limit.

2. The presentation included excerpts from recent judgements (e.g., the Prashant Bhushan judgement, the Right to Privacy judgement), criminal law, jurisprudence, and international law. The questions were a tad challenging.

3. The comprehensions were primarily based on landmark cases, and the subsequent questions focused on application, principles, and jurisprudential aspects.

CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper Analysis

1. Constitutional Law

• Focus on Recent Judgments: A significant portion of the Constitutional Law questions in the CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper likely revolves around recent landmark judgments. The provided excerpt refers to the Division Bench judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, which deals with reservations for disabled persons in public sector employment. This indicates an emphasis on understanding not just the constitutional provisions but also their application in contemporary judicial decisions.

• Articles and Provisions: Questions likely covered various Articles of the Constitution, including fundamental rights (Articles 14-18, 19-22), directive principles (Articles 36-51), and the powers of the judiciary (Articles 124-147). Analysis and interpretation of these provisions would have been a key requirement.

• Case Laws: The paper likely tested the candidates' knowledge of significant Supreme Court rulings, requiring not just recall but also the application of these judgments to hypothetical situations.

2. Jurisprudence

• Theoretical Understanding: Jurisprudence in CLAT PG Question Papers often focusses on legal theories, schools of thought (such as positivism, natural law, and realism), and the contributions of notable jurists. The 2020 paper was anticipated to feature questions that assessed both the candidates' theoretical comprehension and their ability to apply these ideas in actual circumstances.

• Legal Concepts: Topics such as the nature of law, legal rights and obligations, and the link between law and morality may have been investigated. Candidates would have had to demonstrate a thorough comprehension of abstract legal ideas and their consequences.

3. Criminal Law

• Key Statutes and Case Laws: The Criminal Law part most likely concentrated on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and significant cases interpreting these statutes. Questions might have focused on specific provisions, such as murder (Section 300 IPC), theft (Section 378 IPC), or culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC).

• Application-Based Questions: The paper may have included scenarios challenging candidates to apply their understanding of criminal law to real-world settings, assessing their ability to identify relevant statutes and precedents.

4. Administrative Law

• Delegated Legislation and Judicial Review: This section's questions were most likely on delegated legislation, natural justice principles, and judicial review of administrative actions. Given the nature of the CLAT PG exam, applicants would have been examined on both doctrinal understanding and contemporary case law that interprets administrative law concepts.

• Tribunals and Commissions: The CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper may have featured questions about the roles and functions of different administrative agencies, such as tribunals, commissions, and regulatory authorities.

5. Contract Law

• Fundamental Principles: The Contract Law portion most likely examined applicants on the fundamentals of contract formation, such as offer, acceptance, consideration, and contractual capacity. Breach of contract and remedies for breach might also have been important considerations.

• Special Contracts: Questions might have focused on certain forms of contracts such as indemnification, guarantee, bailment, and agency, asking candidates to apply legislative requirements and case law to hypothetical situations.

6. Miscellaneous

• Intellectual Property Law: This section may have contained questions about copyright, trademark, and patent law, as well as any recent revisions or interpretations.

• International Law: Treaties, the role of international organisations (such as the United Nations), and principles of international humanitarian law may have all been discussed.

• Human Rights: Questions about human rights protection may have arisen under both local and international legal systems.

CLAT PG 2020 Questions and Answers

We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajeev Kumar Gupta \& Others v. Union of India \& Others - (2016) 13 SCC 153. In this judgment, the posts in Prasar Bharati were classified into four Groups-A to D . The precise question that arose before the Court is set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory benefit of 3 per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied insofar as identified posts in Groups A and B are concerned, since these posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. After noticing the arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held:

We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation in promotions as propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations in promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question whether reservations could be permitted in matters of promotion under Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations in promotion are not permitted under our constitutional scheme.

The respondent argued that the answer to Question 7 in Indra Sawhney squarely covers the situation on hand and the reasons outlined by the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at ... must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group $A$ and Group $B$.

We do not agree with the respondent's submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the context of reservations in favour of backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of Article $16(4)$.

The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for creating such preferential treatment under law, consistent with the mandate of Article I6(1), the State cannot choose any one of the factors such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article $16(1)$ as the basis. The basis for providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD."

Source: Excerpt taken from a Judgment of three judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose \& V. Ramasubramaniyam., JJ.

1. The above passage has been taken from which of the following recent judgments, relating to the question of reservation in promotions for the disabled persons?

a) National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training.

b) Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

c) Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

d) Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Explanation- This option is correct as the judgement is taken from the case of Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

2. Which of the following is true in context of the scheme provided under Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, relating to reservation in promotion?

a) Reservation in promotion can only be granted to the class of citizens mentioned under Article 16 (4).

b) Reservation in promotion cannot be granted to a class of citizen provided by the virtue of Article $16(1)$.

c) The scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to any class of citizens under the scheme of Article 16 (1).

d) Reservation in promotion defeats the scheme of Article 16 (1) and Article 15 (1).

Explanation- According to the judgment, the scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to any class of citizens under the scheme of Article 16(1). The judgment makes it clear that Article 16(4) does not disable the State from providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) if they deserve such treatment. The key is to choose the basis for providing reservation consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1) and not restricted to factors like caste or religion.

3. The Union government has issued an office memorandum under which $3 \%$ reservation has been provided to the persons with disability, apart from the reservations provided to different class of citizens such as $27 \%$ for $\mathrm{OBCs}, 14 \%$ to SCs and \& $7 \%$ to STs. Now, the total percentage of reservation has reached $51 \%$, which is against the judgment given in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. Now, choose the most appropriate option amongst the following.

a) The reservation provided to persons with disability is constitutionally valid as it falls within the horizontal scheme of reservation.

b) The judgment in Indira Sawhney is not applicable to the persons with disability and hence such reservation is valid.

c) The reservation provided to persons with disability is invalid as in no case reservation can increase $50 \%$.

d) The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and bence unconstitutional.

Explanation- The court asserts that the Indra Sawhney ruling does not apply to reservations for persons with disabilities. It highlights that Article 16(4) does not disable the state from providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) if they deserve such treatment. In the case of PWD, the basis for providing reservation is physical disability, and it does not rely on any criteria forbidden under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions, as laid down in Indra Sawhney, has no normative application to persons with disabilities.

4. What is the meaning of the -Gatch-up" rule associated with the matters of seniority in reservation in promotion?

a) If the junior candidate promoted on the basis of reservation gets promoted to further grade by the time senior general category candidate is promoted to earlier grade, the question of seniority does not arise.

b) A reserved category candidate promoted on the hasis of reservation earlier than his senior general category candidates in the feeder category, shall become junior when general category senior candidate too gets promoted.

c) The candidate promoted to higher grade on the basis of reservation remains senior even if his senior is promoted to the same grade.

d) None of the above.

Explanation - According to this rule, a reserved category candidate who is promoted on the basis of reservation earlier than their senior general category candidates in the feeder category becomes junior when the senior general category candidate is also promoted. This ensures that the reserved category candidate does not permanently stay senior to their originally senior general category candidates.

5. The Article 16 (4A), provides for which of the following?

a) Catch-up rule.

b) Carry forward rule.

c) Consequential seniority.

d) All of the above

Explanation- The Article 16(4A) provides for consequential seniority. Consequential seniority means that if a person with a disability is promoted based on reservation, the seniority would be counted from the date of promotion, not from the date of their initial appointment. The judgment is in the context of reservations for PWD, and it specifically addresses the issue of consequential seniority

Conclusion

The CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper looks to have been thorough, encompassing both core and peripheral areas of law and emphasising contemporary judicial developments. Candidates were required to possess not just a thorough comprehension of legislative requirements, but also the capacity to apply them to difficult, factual events. The paper's format, which included a fair mix of theoretical and practical issues from several legal fields, is likely to have fostered critical thinking.

You may also check:

• CLAT PG Books
• How To Prepare For CLAT PG
• CLAT PG Mock Test
• CLAT PG Study Material
• CLAT PG Previous Year Question Paper