CLAT November 14 Daily Practice Questions with Answers

CLAT November 14 Daily Practice Questions with Answers

CLAT 2025 November 14 Daily Practice Questions with Answers: For the CLAT 2024 exam, the candidates should take these daily practice questions with answers for November 14. Topics covered the English language and current affairs, including general knowledge, quantitative techniques, and legal and logical reasoning. This sample practice will effectively help improve your time management, analytical thinking, and reading skills. Consistently working and analyzing the questions can boost their preparation for the upcoming exams.

Also Read | CLAT November 13 Daily Practice Questions with Answers

CLAT 2025 November 14 Daily Practice Questions with Answers: Legal Reasoning

Candidates can check out the CLAT 2025 November 14  Daily Practice Questions with Answers from the Legal Reasoning section:

Read the following passage and answer the questions

Passage: Twitter’s lawyer on October 27, said before the Karnataka High Court that the 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 harbour 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.

Question 1: 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?

(A)   Yes, since it did not provide any reasons that could be communicated to the users of the social media platform.

(B)   No, since Sunil had provided reasons to UnReal for ordering that the post be blocked.

(C)   Yes, since Sunil did not have the authority to issue blocking orders so frequently.

(D)   No, since the post divulged confidential government information.

Answer: (B)

Question 2: 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?

(A)   Yes, since Sunil was clearly targeting Sachin, and was misusing his powers to silence him.

(B)   No, since UnReal had shared the reasons for the blocking order with Sachin.

(C)   Yes, since Section 69A of the IT Act only permits blocking information, or a particular post, but not a whole account.

(D)   No, since his posts were seen as increasingly objectionable by the government.

Answer: (C)

Question 3: 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?

(A)  No, the blocking order is valid since Sunil found the posts objectionable.

(B)  No, the blocking order is valid since Sunil had provided reasons for blocking the post.

(C)  Yes, Sunil’s reasons are vague, and he should have provided more detail.

(D)  Yes, such an order is violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Answer: (C)

Question 4: 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?

(A)  The blocking order was valid, but UnReal’s actions were inappropriate.

(B)   UnReal’s actions were valid, but the blocking order was invalid.

(C)   UnReal’s actions were valid, but Sachin’s actions were invalid.

(D)   Sachin’s actions were valid, but the blocking order was invalid.

Answer: (A)

Question 5: 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?

(A)  Yes, since making such threats amounts to intimidation.

(B) No, since Sunil had issued blocking orders in the past as well, and UnReal should have complied with the orders without questioning them.

(C)  Yes, since Sunil did not have the power to cancel UnReal’s safe harbour immunity.

(D)  No, since the IT Act does not forbid Sunil from doing so.

Answer: (C)