Important Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2025

Preparing the important legal reasoning questions for CLAT 2025 is necessary to have a good exam score. Candidates must devise an efficient strategy to study legal reasoning for CLAT 2025 which comprises roughly 25% of the question paper. To improve their performance in the exam, students must be thorough with the topics that have high weightage. Some of the important CLAT legal reasoning topics include legal terms, legal maxims, Supreme Court judgements, the Indian Constitution, the Indian judiciary, recent legal amendments and agreements, bills and acts, legal contracts etc.

Read the article given below to find some of the important legal reasoning questions for CLAT 2025 in order to enhance your preparation.

CLAT 2025 Legal Reasoning Section Highlights

The primary aspect is to go through the CLAT 2025 legal reasoning section highlights given below to understand the demand in order to make a preparation strategy accordingly.

Also Read: Preparation Tips for CLAT 2025 Legal Reasoning Section

Important Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2025

The questions asked from the legal reasoning section of CLAT 2025 are fact based and principle based in form of comprehension passages. Students are provided with a legal proposition (principle) in the form of a passage and a set of facts to which the proposition is to be applied. 

While solving questions from this section, students are recommended to disregard all legal knowledge they have and answer strictly based on interpretation derived from the principle as given in the passage.

Some of the important legal reasoning questions for CLAT 2025 are as follows: 

Passage 1:

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 are 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 says that she was treated properly for about a month and then “like a maid servant”, there are no details of what this meant. The Court added: “If a married lady is asked to do household work for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant.” The Court held that the mere use of the word harassment “mentally and physically” in the FIR is not sufficient to constitute an offence 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 maid servant and constitutes an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Applying the Bombay High Court decision, is she likely to succeed?

1. Yes, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.
2. No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.
3. Yes, since Ashwin had asked Ashima to do household work for themselves as well as others.
4. No, since treating a married woman like a maid servant would not amount to an offence under that Section.

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 threw a plate at her one evening when he was unhappy with the meal that she had prepared. Ashima now claims that Rakesh has committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Is she likely to succeed?

1. No, since Rakesh’s actions were perfectly justifiable for a man who does not get a well-cooked meal.
2. Yes, since Rakesh’s use of abusive language and throwing the plate at Ashima clearly amount to cruelty.
3. No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.
4. Yes, since Rakesh was staying at Ashwin and Ashima’s home at the time of the incident.

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 office regularly at a new job. Ashwin is very upset at 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?

1. Yes, since Ashwin has, as we are told, treated her cruelly.
2. Yes, since Ashwin has been her husband.
3. No, since Ashwin was understandably upset at Ashima’s behaviour.
4. 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 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?

1. Ashima is right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, but she will not get compensation under the PoMWA.
2. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, but she is not right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, and she is also right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
4. Ashima will neither get compensation under the PoMWA, nor is she 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?

1. Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita’s husband’s actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A.
2. No, since Ashima has been unsuccessful in having Ashwin convicted under that Section in the past.
3. Yes, since the passing of the Protection of Married Women Act has resulted in Shamita’s husband’s actions being made illegal.
4. No, since Ashima is only Shamita’s friend, and only the married woman herself can file a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC.

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 scan, physical, 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. Measurements 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]

Q6. 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 finger-impressions 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?

1. No, since Bhargesh had only been arrested, and not convicted.
2. Yes, since Bhargesh was under arrest.
3. No, since the Rules had not yet been notified.
4. Yes, since finger-impressions are included within the definition of “measurements” under the Act.

Q7. 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 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?

1. Yes, since the crime that Bhargesh was accused of was very serious.
2. Yes, since the Magistrate had passed an order directing him to do so.
3. Yes, since Bhargesh had already been arrested in connection with another crime in the past.
4. Yes, since the police needed the blood samples to verify Bhargesh’s involvement in the crime.

Q8. 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?

1. No, since he was not charged or under arrest in connection with any other offence at the time.
2. No, since that would violate Bhargesh’s right to privacy.
3. Yes, since the police had detained Bhargesh under a preventive Section of the CrPC.
4. Yes, since there was a high likelihood that Bhargesh would disturb the public peace on a festival day.

Q9. Two days later, the police obtain an order from the Magistrate directing Bhargesh to provide them 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?

1. Yes, since Bhargesh had been detained under a preventive section of the CrPC.
2. 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.
3. No, the Magistrate had issued an order directing him to provide his photographs to the police.
4. No, since the police constable was only performing his duty.

Q10. 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 ` 1,00,000/- for his good behavior and to ensure he maintains the peace, which the Magistrate refuses. The police now tell Bhargesh he must provide them his iris and retina scans. Is Bhargesh required to do so?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Yes, since Bhargesh had been detained under other preventive sections of the CrPC in the past.
4. No, since the Magistrate had not issued the order.

Passage 3:

The government has amended the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018. The Ministry of Finance on November 7, 2022, issued a notification for amending the scheme to provide “an additional period of 15 days” for their sale “in the year of general elections to the Legislative Assembly of any States or Union Territories with Legislature”. The bonds under this scheme are usually made available for purchase by any person for a period of ten days each in the months of January, April, July, and October, when specified by the Union Government. The original scheme had provided for an additional period of thirty days, as specified by the Government, in the year when Lok Sabha elections are held, while the amendment adds another 15 days.

Since Assembly elections to various States and Union Territories are held every year, the amendment effectively means that there will be 15 additional dates annually during which the bonds can be sold. Immediately after issuing the notification, the Union Government also announced the sale of electoral bonds under the 23rd tranche from the authorised branches of the State Bank of India. The notification said the sale of bonds would take place through the 29 authorised branches of the said bank from November 9 to November 15, 2022. Like in previous rounds of sale, the electoral bonds shall be valid for 15 calendar days from the date of issue and no payment shall be made to any payee political party if the bond is deposited after expiry of the validity period. The Electoral Bond deposited by an eligible political party in its account shall be credited on the same day.

[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Electoral Bonds Scheme Amended To Allow Sale for Additional 15 Days in Assembly Election Years”, by Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar, The Wire]

Q11. Assad buys an electoral bond worth ` 1,00,000/- on November 9, 2022 and plans to give the bond to the Popular People’s Party (the “PPP”), which he has been supporting for many years. On November 10, he must travel out of station on some urgent business, and he only hands the bond over to a representative of the PPP on November 14, 2022. The PPP’s representative deposits the bond in the Party’s account on November 16, 2022, but the bank refuses to credit the bond to the party’s account, on the grounds that it was no longer valid. Is the bank correct?

1. No, since Assad was a long-time supporter of the PPP.
2. Yes, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that.
3. Yes, since the party representative had not deposited the bond with an authorised branch of the bank.
4. No, since the bond was valid on November 16, 2022.

Q12. The Government announces that there would be a sale of a 24th tranche of electoral bonds on February 10, 2023, for a period of 15 days, since elections to the Legislative Assembly of some States are scheduled for that year. Since there are no elections to the Lok Sabha or the Legislative Assembly of the State in which Assad resides, he claims that the Government does not have the power to issue this 24th tranche of electoral bonds in 2023. Is he right?

1. No, since the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 mean that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in any year, regardless of whether any elections are scheduled that year.
2. Yes, since no elections were scheduled for Assad’s state in that year.
3. Yes, since the Government had already sold some bonds in the 23rd tranche in 2022.
4. No, since the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 provide that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in years when there is an election to the Legislative Assembly of a State.

Q13. On November 10, 2022, Palak purchases an electoral bond from a branch of the State Bank of India, and hands it over to a representative of the PPP. The next day, the PPP announces that it has changed its candidates for the upcoming elections in Palak’s State. Upset at this news, she tells a PPP representative that she would like her bond back. The representative tells her that the bond has already been deposited, and that the money has been credited to the party’s account. Palak claims that since the period of validity of the bonds has not expired, she has the right to get her bond back from the party. Is she right?

1. No, since Palak cannot ask for the bond back once she has given it to a political party.
2. No, since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account.
3. Yes, since Palak bought the bond with her own money, and has the right to ask for it back.
4. Yes, since the PPP changed its candidates, and Palak may no longer support the party.

Q14. On November 15, 2022, the Government issues another notification, announcing that from that date onwards, only political parties that have received at least 1% of the votes polled in the last elections to the Lok Sabha, or the last elections to the Legislative Assembly of a State, would be eligible to receive and deposit electoral bonds. In the sale of the 24th tranche of electoral bonds, Palak decides to give the electoral bonds she has purchased to the newly formed More Popular People’s Party (the “MPPP”), which is likely to win the first elections it would be contesting, in July 2023. Is the MPPP eligible to receive the electoral bonds?

1. Yes, since it is likely to succeed in the upcoming elections.
2. Yes, since it fulfils the criteria announced in the November 7, 2022 notification.
3. No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022 notification.
4. No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 7, 2022 notification.

Q15. Abraham, who lives in a different State from Assad, purchased an electoral bond in the sale of the 23rd tranche. He decides to give the electoral bond to the PPP, even though the PPP is only active in Assad’s State. When the PPP representative goes to an authorised branch of the State Bank of India to deposit the electoral bond on December 5, 2022 however, the bank refuses to credit the money to the PPP’s account. Which of the following would be the most valid reason for the bank to refuse to credit the money to the party’s account?

1. The bond was no longer valid.
2. Abraham could not give the bond to the PPP since the PPP was not active in his state.
3. The PPP was not eligible to receive electoral bonds.
4. The PPP could only deposit the bond in a bank branch located in Abraham’s state.

Passage 4:

Twitter’s lawyer on October 27, said before the Karnataka High Court that Union government orders to block certain Twitter handles and posts must contain reasons for the same that can be communicated to users of the microblogging site. He said this applies to all blocking orders sent to social media platforms. The lawyer representing Twitter said that reasons for the blocking order must be provided to users so they can determine whether or not they want to challenge the orders.

Challenging the blocking orders, Twitter’s July 5 petition contended that several blocking orders “demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate”. Such orders can only be issued by the Union government and not the state governments, he said, which increases the danger of such abuse. Twitter also claimed that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had sent it a letter threatening consequences for failing to comply with the blocking orders, such as criminal proceedings against the company’s chief compliance officer and the stripping away of Twitter’s safe harbour immunity, otherwise available to social media platforms under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act (the “IT Act”). Note that the Government has the power to strip away such safe harbor immunity under the IT Act. Further, in a previous hearing, Twitter’s lawyer said that the company was asked to block entire accounts, although Section 69A of the IT Act does not permit blocking of the whole account. It only permits the blocking of information, or a particular tweet or post. It argued that the Union government’s direction to block whole accounts will affect its business, adding that several prominent persons have their accounts on the platform.

[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “ ‘Government Must Provide Reasons for Blocking User Accounts,’ Twitter Tells Karnataka HC”, The Wire]

Q16. Sunil is a high-ranking officer of the Union government. While scrolling through his timeline on a social media platform, he notices some posts by Sachin, a private businessman, which he finds objectionable. He sends an order to UnReal, the company that owns that social media platform, that the posts must be blocked, as they may bring disrepute to India. UnReal claims that Sunil has not provided a clear, detailed reason for blocking the posts, and so, the order is not valid. Is UnReal right?

1. No, the blocking order is valid since Sunil found the posts objectionable.
2. No, the blocking order is valid since Sunil had provided reasons for blocking the post.
3. Yes, Sunil’s reasons are vague, and he should have provided more detail.
4. Yes, such an order is violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Q17. Some days later, Sunil notices another post from Sachin on UnReal’s social media platform; this post contains some highly sensitive information about the country’s defence policies. He issues an order to UnReal, that the post must be blocked since it divulges the government’s confidential information. The order also says that UnReal should not let anyone know about the blocking order, or that the post was ordered to be deleted, since it relates to secret government information. UnReal claims that this order is invalid. Is UnReal right?

1. Yes, since it did not provide any reasons that could be communicated to the users of the social media platform.
2. No, since Sunil had provided reasons to UnReal for ordering that the post be blocked.
3. Yes, since Sunil did not have the authority to issue blocking orders so frequently.
4. No, since the post divulged confidential government information.

Q18. Sunil sends UnReal a third blocking order. UnReal claims that this order too was invalid. Upset with UnReal for claiming that all his blocking orders were invalid, Sunil sends them a letter in which he says, “If you do not comply with my blocking orders, then I will be forced to initiate criminal proceedings against you and cancel your safe harbour immunity.” UnReal claims that Sunil has broken the law by making these statements in the letter. Is UnReal right?

1. Yes, since making such threats amounts to intimidation.
2. No, since Sunil had issued blocking orders in the past as well, and UnReal should have complied with the orders without questioning them.
3. Yes, since Sunil did not have the power to cancel UnReal’s safe harbor immunity.
4. No, since the IT Act does not forbid Sunil from doing so.

Q19. Complying with a fourth blocking order that they receive from Sunil, UnReal blocks Sachin’s account, since his posts were seen as increasingly objectionable by the government. Sachin asks UnReal to share the reasons for the blocking order, which they do, yet Sachin claims the blocking order is invalid. Is he right?

1. Yes, since Sunil was clearly targeting Sachin, and was misusing his powers to silence him.
2. No, since UnReal had shared the reasons for the blocking order with Sachin.
3. Yes, since Section 69A of the IT Act only permits blocking information, or a particular post, but not a whole account.
4. No, since his posts were seen as increasingly objectionable by the government.

Q20. Sunil sends UnReal a fifth blocking order, which says that several of Sachin’s latest posts must be blocked. The blocking order sets out several reasons why the posts should be blocked, but UnReal does not find them satisfactory. Rather than take on another fight with a government official however, UnReal blocks the posts, and gives Sachin what it thinks is a better set of reasons for blocking the posts. When Sachin finds out, he claims this was wrong on UnReal’s part, and that the blocking order was inappropriate. Which of the following is most accurate in this regard?

1. The blocking order was valid, but UnReal’s actions were inappropriate.
2. UnReal’s actions were valid, but the blocking order was invalid.
3. UnReal’s actions were valid, but Sachin’s actions were invalid.
4. Sachin’s actions were valid, but the blocking order was invalid.

Also Read:How to Crack CLAT 2025 in First Attempt?

Important Topics for Legal Reasoning Section of CLAT 2025

While preparing for the legal reasoning section of CLAT 2025, candidates must be aware of the important topics beforehand so that they can put extra emphasis on them at the time of revision.

Students must properly analyze previous year question papers to look for topics which are repeated and stay in touch with the current affairs in order to be aware of the key topics which are currently in news so that they can prepare them for the upcoming exam.

Some of the important topics for legal reasoning section of CLAT 2025 are listed below:

• Legal Terms
• Indian Constitution 
• Contracts
• Landmark Judgements/ Supreme Court Judgements
• Current Affairs Related to Law (Judgements/ Bills/ Acts) etc

Preparation Tips for CLAT 2025 Legal Reasoning

Some of the preparation tips to prepare for legal reasoning section of CLAT 2025 are as follows:

• Candidates need to analyze and solve CLAT previous year question papers to know how the questions and answer choices are framed to understand the demand of the section
• Next, they must be aware of legal current affairs. They can read the newspaper daily and study from current affairs magazines and online websites to develop a grip over legal current affairs..
• It is very important to develop conceptual clarity for this section. Candidates can take help from YouTube videos or static books to cover the topics comprehensively.
• Being aware of important topics beforehand helps in effective preparation. Students can know about the key topics by analyzing previous year question papers and being aware of the current affairs.
• Creating your own notes from one basic and one advanced level book and revising them multiple times is the best way to prepare for the legal reasoning section of CLAT 2025.
• Solving a lot of CLAT sample papers before the exam, especially in the same time duration as the real exam helps candidates in learning time management, as well as daily practice increase their overall performance.

That’s all you need to know about the important legal reasoning questions for CLAT 2025.

Stay tuned to CollegeDekho for more such informative articles.