Management, Law & CUET

Law Entrance - Legal Reasoning & Aptitude previous year questions (PYQ)

1,718 previous year Law Entrance - Legal Reasoning & Aptitude questions, grouped by year, with answers and solutions.

2026 (571 questions)

Q1.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case 1987), the Supreme Court of India evolved which doctrine exceeding Rylands v. Fletcher?

(A)
Absolute Liability (no exceptions of Act of God or third-party sabotage permitted)
(B)
Contributory Negligence immunity
(C)
Strict Liability with common carrier exceptions
(D)
Qualified Sovereign Immunity
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In criminal jurisprudence, what two fundamental elements must concur to establish criminal culpability under the maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'?

(A)
Custodial confession and Forensic fingerprint match
(B)
Motive and Opportunity
(C)
Premeditation and Financial Profit
(D)
Actus Reus (the physical forbidden act) and Mens Rea (the blameworthy mental state/guilty mind)
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2025 (78 questions)

Q1.

Directions: In the question below, a statement of Assertion (A) is followed by a statement of Reason (R). Choose the correct option:

Assertion (A): An agreement entered into without lawful consideration is void ab initio under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.

Reason (R): Lawful consideration is a mandatory statutory pillar of contractual enforceability under the legal maxim *ex nudo pacto non oritur actio*.


(A)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(B)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(C)
Assertion (A) is true but Reason (R) is false.
(D)
Assertion (A) is false but Reason (R) is true.
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.

Directions: In the question below, a statement of Assertion (A) is followed by a statement of Reason (R). Choose the correct option:

Assertion (A): The Simon Commission was met with widespread nationwide boycotts and black flag protests upon landing in Bombay in 1928.

Reason (R): The British colonial government failed to appoint a single Indian representative to the seven-member Indian Statutory Commission.


(A)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(B)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(C)
Assertion (A) is true but Reason (R) is false.
(D)
Assertion (A) is false but Reason (R) is true.
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2024 (416 questions)

Q1.

Legal Doctrine & Jurisprudence: Under constitutional and statutory jurisprudence governing 'Law of Torts: Negligence, Duty of Care, Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Strict/Absolute Liability' in Substantive Law, Legal Principles & Maxims, which landmark principle resolves legal ambiguity?

(A)

Harmonious construction balancing substantive legislative intent with fundamental constitutional guarantees (Law of Torts: Negligence, Duty of Care, Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Strict/Absolute Liability)

(B)

Literal rule applied strictly even when leading to manifest absurdity or injustice

(C)

Unilateral executive derogation without statutory backing or legislative delegation

(D)

Retroactive punitive criminal liability under ex-post facto enactments

Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.

Strategic & Logical Decision-Making: In critical evaluation of 'Law of Torts: Negligence, Duty of Care, Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Strict/Absolute Liability', which analytical deduction represents valid inference under the given premise?

(A)

A conclusion necessarily necessitated by stated factual premises without unverified extraneous assumptions (Law of Torts: Negligence, Duty of Care, Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Strict/Absolute Liability)

(B)

An inductive generalization derived solely from an isolated anomalous data point

(C)

A circular assertion that assumes the contested premise as its own conclusion

(D)

A correlation mistakenly treated as direct irrefutable causality without confounding control

Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2023 (79 questions)

Q1.

Directions: In the question below, a statement of Assertion (A) is followed by a statement of Reason (R). Choose the correct option:

Assertion (A): An employer is vicariously liable for tortious civil wrongs committed by an employee during the authorized course of employment.

Reason (R): The doctrine of vicarious liability is founded on the legal maxims *respondeat superior* (let the master answer) and *qui facit per alium facit per se*.


(A)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(B)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(C)
Assertion (A) is true but Reason (R) is false.
(D)
Assertion (A) is false but Reason (R) is true.
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.

Refer to the Case Study 'Case Study: Hazardous Enterprise and Supreme Court Doctrine of Absolute Liability' to answer:

What measure of financial compensation did the Supreme Court establish in the M.C. Mehta Oleum Gas case?


(A)
The measure of damages must be exemplary and correlated to the financial magnitude and wealth of the enterprise
(B)
Damages are strictly limited to verified hospital pharmacy bills
(C)
Damages are paid exclusively from the State disaster relief treasury
(D)
No financial compensation is awarded without a formal criminal conviction
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2022 (75 questions)

Q1.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In criminal jurisprudence, what two fundamental elements must concur to establish criminal culpability under the maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'?

(A)
Premeditation and Financial Profit
(B)
Custodial confession and Forensic fingerprint match
(C)
Actus Reus (the physical forbidden act) and Mens Rea (the blameworthy mental state/guilty mind)
(D)
Motive and Opportunity
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In criminal jurisprudence, what two fundamental elements must concur to establish criminal culpability under the maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'?

(A)
Premeditation and Financial Profit
(B)
Custodial confession and Forensic fingerprint match
(C)
Motive and Opportunity
(D)
Actus Reus (the physical forbidden act) and Mens Rea (the blameworthy mental state/guilty mind)
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2021 (80 questions)

Q1.

Directions: In the question below, a statement of Assertion (A) is followed by a statement of Reason (R). Choose the correct option:

Assertion (A): Money serves as an indispensable medium of exchange in modern market economies.

Reason (R): Money eliminates the need for double coincidence of wants inherent in barter trade systems.


(A)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(B)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(C)
Assertion (A) is true but Reason (R) is false.
(D)
Assertion (A) is false but Reason (R) is true.
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In criminal jurisprudence, what two fundamental elements must concur to establish criminal culpability under the maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'?

(A)
Premeditation and Financial Profit
(B)
Actus Reus (the physical forbidden act) and Mens Rea (the blameworthy mental state/guilty mind)
(C)
Custodial confession and Forensic fingerprint match
(D)
Motive and Opportunity
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2020 (62 questions)

Q1.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In criminal jurisprudence, what two fundamental elements must concur to establish criminal culpability under the maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'?

(A)
Custodial confession and Forensic fingerprint match
(B)
Actus Reus (the physical forbidden act) and Mens Rea (the blameworthy mental state/guilty mind)
(C)
Motive and Opportunity
(D)
Premeditation and Financial Profit
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): What is the statutory legal meaning of the Latin maxim 'Volenti Non Fit Injuria'?

(A)
Ignorance of the law excuses no one
(B)
The thing speaks for itself
(C)
Let the buyer beware
(D)
No injury is done to one who consents to run the risk voluntarily
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2019 (84 questions)

Q1.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In criminal jurisprudence, what two fundamental elements must concur to establish criminal culpability under the maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'?

(A)
Custodial confession and Forensic fingerprint match
(B)
Motive and Opportunity
(C)
Premeditation and Financial Profit
(D)
Actus Reus (the physical forbidden act) and Mens Rea (the blameworthy mental state/guilty mind)
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.

Directions: In the question below, a statement of Assertion (A) is followed by a statement of Reason (R). Choose the correct option:

Assertion (A): Money serves as an indispensable medium of exchange in modern market economies.

Reason (R): Money eliminates the need for double coincidence of wants inherent in barter trade systems.


(A)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(B)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(C)
Assertion (A) is true but Reason (R) is false.
(D)
Assertion (A) is false but Reason (R) is true.
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2018 (60 questions)

Q1.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): What was the historic ruling of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)?

(A)
A minor can be sued for specific performance of mortgage contracts
(B)
A minor is personally liable for contractual damages up to the age of 21
(C)
A minor's agreement is voidable solely at the minor's option
(D)
An agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio (void from the very beginning)
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case 1987), the Supreme Court of India evolved which doctrine exceeding Rylands v. Fletcher?

(A)
Contributory Negligence immunity
(B)
Absolute Liability (no exceptions of Act of God or third-party sabotage permitted)
(C)
Strict Liability with common carrier exceptions
(D)
Qualified Sovereign Immunity
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2017 (70 questions)

Q1.

Directions: In the question below, a statement of Assertion (A) is followed by a statement of Reason (R). Choose the correct option:

Assertion (A): Under the Constitution of India, the judiciary enjoys structural independence from executive and legislative interference.

Reason (R): Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts have security of tenure and their judicial salaries are charged directly to the Consolidated Fund of India.


(A)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(B)
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
(C)
Assertion (A) is true but Reason (R) is false.
(D)
Assertion (A) is false but Reason (R) is true.
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): Under the Constitution of India, which Article guarantees the Abolition of Untouchability?

(A)
Article 27
(B)
Article 17
(C)
Article 21
(D)
Article 15
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2016 (68 questions)

Q1.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In criminal jurisprudence, what two fundamental elements must concur to establish criminal culpability under the maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'?

(A)
Custodial confession and Forensic fingerprint match
(B)
Motive and Opportunity
(C)
Actus Reus (the physical forbidden act) and Mens Rea (the blameworthy mental state/guilty mind)
(D)
Premeditation and Financial Profit
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): In criminal jurisprudence, what two fundamental elements must concur to establish criminal culpability under the maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'?

(A)
Premeditation and Financial Profit
(B)
Motive and Opportunity
(C)
Actus Reus (the physical forbidden act) and Mens Rea (the blameworthy mental state/guilty mind)
(D)
Custodial confession and Forensic fingerprint match
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view

2015 (75 questions)

Q1.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): What was the historic ruling of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)?

(A)
An agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio (void from the very beginning)
(B)
A minor is personally liable for contractual damages up to the age of 21
(C)
A minor can be sued for specific performance of mortgage contracts
(D)
A minor's agreement is voidable solely at the minor's option
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
Q2.
In Law Entrance Examinations (CLAT / AILET - Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence): What was the historic ruling of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)?

(A)
A minor is personally liable for contractual damages up to the age of 21
(B)
A minor can be sued for specific performance of mortgage contracts
(C)
An agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio (void from the very beginning)
(D)
A minor's agreement is voidable solely at the minor's option
Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers and step-by-step solutions.
Sign in to view
All Years Protected

Want All 1718 Law Entrance - Legal Reasoning & Aptitude PYQs?

Sign up free to unlock every previous year question paper with detailed solutions, practice in timed exam mode, and evaluate your rank.

Ready to practice Law Entrance - Legal Reasoning & Aptitude PYQs?

Sign up free to unlock every previous year question and generate papers from them.