Legal Reasoning Module for CLAT

Legal Reasoning questions are majorly based on the previous pattern of

principle-fact-based questions. The only difference is, that instead of a legal
principle, there will be a passage related to law. The questions will be both
straightforward and Legal Reasoning based. The straightforward questions will
test the ability of the student to put forth the best conclusion or supporting
argument related to the legal issue discussed in the passage. This will require
good and unbiased comprehending skills of the students to answer such
questions.
The other kind of questions will be based on Legal Reasoning i.e. students will
be given a hypothetical situation and will have to decide the case by applying
the legal knowledge provided to them in the passage.
Topics on which Legal Reasoning Questions can be framed/have been
framed from analysing the official sample papers and CLAT examination
by the Consortium
Law of Torts
● Act of God
● Negligence
● Assault
● Battery
● fraud/deceit
● Defamation
● Infliction of emotional distress
● Tresspass
● Volenti non fit injuria
● Res ipsa loquitor
Law of Contracts
Criminal Law
Constitutional Law
Topics of Current Legal Developments/Current Affairs

LAW OF TORTS
Elements of the Law of Torts
The Law of Torts has four basic components.
 ● Legal Right
● Wrongful Conduct
● Legal Injury
● Remedy
1. Legal Right
Without a legal right, you cannot have a successful claim in tort. In fact, the
Law of Torts will not even apply. This makes it the most important element,
because in its absence, the rest are useless.
This is because the presence of a legal right is the starting point of the Law of
Torts. Be careful here that, although we are using “right” and “legal right”
interchangeably, we aren’t talking about rights as such, such as an elderly
man’s right to have a seat on a bus.
Such a ‘right’ exists only because it is a morally correct thing to do. However,
no law obliges you to give your seat away to the elderly, and as a result the
man has no legal right to that seat. A consumer, however, has a legal right to
be compensated for defective goods, because that is provided for by the law.
The Law of Torts is only concerned with legal rights.
Lesson – a legal right is a right recognized by law.
“Which law?”
A law which is in force in the place you are in. To be in force means to be
applicable when you go through with your actions.
“Where does this law come from?”
There are mainly two sources of law in India:
(i) Codified Law – any law of the present government, or any body authorized to
make laws, which exists in written form. The Constitution, the different Acts of
Parliament and Legislature, and different Rules, Regulation and Notifications
are examples of codified law.
(ii) Case Law/Common Law – case laws are judgments which are delivered by
the courts at the conclusion of any case. Although these judgments come in
written form, they sit below the codified laws, since the task of the courts is
simply to interpret the law and not to make the law – they are guided by these
codified laws.
However, they can go against the codified law, only if that codified law itself
contravenes a law superior to that, such as the Constitution; or fill up the
loopholes in law where there are no legal provisions – however, they cannot
create a new law in the process.
This practice has been taken from the UK, and countries following such a
system are called common law countries. Others, which strictly follow the
codified law, are called civil law countries
Sometimes, a legal right does not exist as such However, it is only because
someone has a legal duty does that particular right exist. Such a right can only
be enforced against the person who holds the corresponding duty.
For example, a drowning man does not have any right to be saved by a civilian.
However, he only has a right to be saved by a life-guard. This is because, the
life-guard has the duty to save that man. Therefore, he can make a claim only
against the life-guard.
Lesson – legal rights and legal duties are correlated. If someone has a right,
then someone else must have a duty, and vice-versa.
2. Wrongful Conduct
One person’s legal right is infringed or violated through another’s wrongful
conduct.
The conduct is wrongful only because it violates the right. Meaning, the
conduct is not necessarily wrong, but only becomes ‘wrong’ when it violates
that right.
“Why so?”
Let’s consider that there is a wedding function taking place in your
neighborhood. There’s bustling activity around your house, with cars coming in
and going out. Then of course, there’s the music – which you absolutely detest!
It is, however, not deafening, and well within the legal limits. So, you take it in
your stride.
However, if this was to continue past midnight, and you could not sleep
peacefully, you would then magically possess this right to drag them to court;
and, the court will agree with your philosophy – “if you don’t snooze, you lose”.
You will become infamous as one gigantic party-pooper, though.
Lesson – a wrongful conduct is not necessarily a ‘wrong’ or unlawful act. It is
one which merely violates a person’s legal right.
“How does wrongful conduct occur?”
Wrongful conduct can take place in one of two ways:
(i) Commission, or
(ii) Omission
A commission (of a wrong) occurs when a person does something which s/he
was not supposed to do. You can easily think of such a situation – for example,
when you spill water on a friend’s laptop, which you had borrowed from him.
You weren’t supposed to do that.
An omission (to not do a wrong) occurs when a person does not do something
which s/he was supposed to do. For example, if you forget to turn of the lights
when you leave your friend’s house to go on a vacation with him, and as a
result he runs up a huge electricity bill, that’s omission. You should have done
that!
When a wrongful conduct violates a legal right, it leads to a legal injury.
3. Legal Injury
Under the Law of Torts, ‘injury’ has been recognized under two principles.
(i) Injuria sine damnum – “injury without damage”.
(ii) Damnum sine injuria – “damage without injury”.
Now, in these principles two, the words, which look like synonyms, have been
used in different contexts.
‘injuria’ means legal injury, while ‘damnum’ means actual injury/physical
damage.
As we have already discussed which one really has significance, it is injuria
sine damnum that the Law of Torts is bothered about.
“But, what about those cases which require damage too?”
If you notice, the second principle basically says, ‘actual damage without legal
injury’; however, you need legal injury to claim in Tort. Recall the example
where the neighbour plays distasteful music, during usual hours of the day
and within the legal limits.
Thus, the second principle only has ‘academic relevance’, as the judges call. It
will feature nowhere in practical discussions on the Law of Torts.
Also, what the first principle does is barely mention the minimum requirement
for a claim in tort, i.e., injuria. With a few exceptions, the presence of damnum
is irrelevant for a claim as long as injuria is present.
For example, if a person is stopped from entering a polling booth without any
justification, he automatically deserves a remedy because his right has been
infringed. Whether his candidate of choice wins or does not win is immaterial.
Lesson: A claim can be made as soon as a legal injury is established. Actual
damage is required only in exceptional cases.
[Note: WE will refer to ‘legal injury’ as ‘injury’, and ‘actual injury/damage’ as
‘damage’, from hereon.]
4. Remedy
Once a legal injury has been established, the Court will provide you with a
remedy.
This is based in the principle ubi jus, ibi remedium – “where there is a right,
there is a remedy”.
The Law of Torts tries to bring the aggrieved person, or the claimant, back to
the position which s/he would have been in had the wrongful conduct not
occurred. This is done through a remedy.
In other words, a remedy tries to revert the damage done.
There are broadly three types of remedies:
(i) Damages
It is the most popular form of remedy. It is simply a monetary estimate of your
injury, based on its nature and severity. Therefore, it can be awarded in any
case as a remedy, since all injuries can be estimated in one way or the other.
The damages awarded are unliquidated. Meaning, that they are not pre-decided
between the parties, and have to be estimated by the court while awarding it.
There is no one-size-fits-all formula, and the damage has to be assessed on a
case-to-case basis, and damages are decided accordingly.
“Damage v. Damages – what’s the catch?”
Why the extra ‘s’? ‘Damage’ means injury, which cannot be quantified to a
specific number. It can only be estimated. However, a monetary sum, or
‘damages’ can be quantified.
(ii) Injunction
An Injunction is a court’s order to stop a person from doing a tortuous act.
This is usually when the tortious act is continuous in nature, or occurs
periodically, in order to put a stop to any further occurrence. Therefore, it
cannot be given out as a remedy in all cases
For example, if your neighbour plays loud music every night, there is no point
in awarding you damages only. Your neighbour can only go and play it again –
there’s no one stopping him/her from that.
That’s where the court will issue an order for an injunction, asking him/her to
stop playing the music at night. The injunction can be partial or total – s/he
may be barred from playing music at all hours, too!
(iii) Restitution
Restitution remedies a case where there is actual or physical damage.
The court orders for restitution when a thing or object has to be restored by the
tortfeasor to either the condition:
(a) as it was when s/he damaged it.
(b) or a condition better than that.
So, if your friend accidentally breaks your phone’s screen, you should probably
be getting a new phone in return. Unless, your screen was already broken, and
was holding on for dear life with a piece of sellotape. Then you simply…put
more sellotapes!
Of course, restitution only works if the object can be restored. For example, an
antique from the Harappan Civilization is unlikely to be restored if damaged.
Thus, restitution also finds limited usage in remedy.

Sample Solved Passages

Mr. Ali resided in the city of Mumbai and was long suspected of having
committed several offenses, including smuggling. Ali came across a police
check-post on the road on 15 December 2019, and, afraid that the police would
find the contraband that he had hidden in the trunk of his car, he drove
through the check-post instead of stopping.
In doing so, he smashed his car through the barricades at the check-post, and
a piece from the barricades flew a few feet away and injured a policeman
manning the check-post. Ali was later caught by the police, and charged with
the offense of obstructing justice, which the police claimed he did by crashing
through the check-post. Ali was acquitted of this charge since the police were
not able to produce adequate evidence before the court. Some months later, the
police, bent on teaching Ali a lesson, filed charges of injuring a police officer on
duty against Ali.
1. When Ali was convicted, he filed an appeal claiming that the decision
violated the protection against double jeopardy in Article 20. Will Ali succeed?
(a)No, since the second charge filed against Ali was in relation to a different
offense than the first one.
(b)Yes, since he had already been prosecuted for crashing through the
barricades and could not be prosecuted for the same actions again.
(c)Yes, since he had already been acquitted the first time charges were filed
against him.
(d)No, since he was long suspected of having committed several offences.
Answer:(a)
Rationale: The correct answer is (a) - no, since the second charge filed against
Ali was in relation to a different offence than the first one. The passage tells us
that the protection against double jeopardy is against a person being
‘prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Since Ali was being prosecuted for a different offence the second time (that of
injuring a police officer on duty) than the first time (that of obstructing justice),
the protection against double jeopardy would not apply in this case.
Since the second prosecution involved a different offence, options (b) and (c)
cannot be the correct answer. Option (d) is irrelevant to the question, and so,
cannot be the correct answer.
2. Sometime after the two prosecutions mentioned in the previous question,
the police manage to recover CCTV footage from the area near the place where
the police check-post was and filed fresh charges of obstructing justice against
Ali for crashing through the check-post. They claim that the CCTV footage
would help them win the case this time. Ali claims that this fresh, third trial,
violates his protection against double jeopardy in Article 20 of the Constitution.
Will he succeed?
(a)Yes, since Ali is a citizen of India and is protected under Article 20 of the
Constitution.
(b)No, since the police were able to bring fresh evidence before the court in this
new trial.
(c)Yes, since he had already been prosecuted for the offence of obstructing
justice and was acquitted.
(d)No, since he was prosecuted but not punished for the same offence in the
first trial.
Answer:(d) Rationale: The correct answer is (d) - no, since he was prosecuted
but not punished for the same offence in the first trial. The protection under
Article 20 is against a person being ‘prosecuted and punished for the same
offence more than once.
Since Ali had been prosecuted, but not punished in the first trial, he would not
have the advantage of this protection under Article 20. For the same reason, (c)
cannot be the correct answer.
While options (a) and (b) may be true, they do not address the issue of whether
the protection under Article 20 applies in this third trial, and so, neither (a) nor
(b) can be the correct answer.

3:Concerned at the increasing number of instances of rash driving in Mumbai,

the legislature passes a law on 12 January 2020, making rash driving a
criminal offense punishable with three months’ imprisonment. The police, who
are hell-bent on punishing Ali by now, file fresh charges and initiate a fourth
case against Ali, claiming that his act of driving through the police check-post
constituted rash driving. Ali now claims that this fourth trial violates the first
clause of Article 20. Will the police succeed in this fourth trial?
(a)Yes, since Ali had injured a policeman when he drove through the
check-post.
(b)No, since driving through a check-post does not constitute rash driving.
(c)No, since rash driving was not an offence at the time Ali drove through the
police check-post.
(d)Yes, since Ali had been prosecuted for different offences in the previous three
trials.
Answer:(c)
Rationale: The correct answer is (c) – no, since rash driving was not an offence
at the time Ali drove through the police check-post. The first clause of Article
20 provides that “a person cannot be convicted for an offence which was not an
offence at the time at which it was committed”. Since rash driving was not an
offence on 15 December 2019 when Ali drove through the check-post, he
cannot be punished for having committed that offence. While options (a) and
(b) may or may not be true, they do not address the question of whether Ali’s
rights under the first clause of Article 20 had been violated, and so, neither (a)
nor (b) can be the correct answer. Option (d) is irrelevant to the question – it
addresses the issue of double jeopardy rather than the protection under the
first clause of Article 20, and so, (d) cannot be the correct answer.
4: While he was in custody, the police decided to investigate whether Ali was
involved in the instances of smuggling that he was suspected of having
committed. They asked him to produce a DNA sample that they could use to
compare against the evidence they obtained from a boat suspected to have
been used in such smuggling activities. Ali refused, claiming that forcing him
to provide a DNA sample would violate his protection against self-incrimination
under Article 20. Can the police force Ali to provide the DNA sample?
(a)Yes, since DNA samples amount to physical evidence, and not testimonial
evidence.
(b)Yes, since smuggling is a serious offence, and Ali was already suspected of
being involved in it.
(c)No, since producing DNA samples would amount to compelling Ali to be a
witness against himself.
(d)No, since Ali had not been charged with smuggling at the time he was asked
to produce the sample.
Answer:(a)
The correct answer is (a) – yes since DNA samples amount to physical evidence,
and not testimonial evidence. The decision in Kathu Kalu Oghad clarifies that
the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20 extends to “the
production of information based on personal knowledge” (testimonial evidence)
but not ‘physical evidence’ like “a writing sample or a thumb impression”.
For this reason, (c) cannot be the correct answer. Options (b) and (d) may be
true, but they do not address the question, and so, neither can be the correct
answer.
5: Assuming that the Supreme Court was bound to follow the decision in
Kathu Kalu Oghad while deciding Selvi, what decision should the Supreme
Court have taken in Selvi as regards the forcible administration of
narco-analysis on a person?
(a)It would be constitutional, since it is a new technology, and is different from
other techniques of extracting evidence like fingerprints or thumb impressions.
(b)It would be unconstitutional since it would amount to forcibly extracting
testimonial evidence.
(c)It would be constitutional, since it only has a physical effect, and so, would
amount to extracting physical evidence.
(d)It would be unconstitutional since it puts a person in an abnormal state of
mind where they cannot remember their rights under Article 20.
Answer:(b)
The correct answer is (b) – it would be unconstitutional since it would amount
to forcibly extracting testimonial evidence. As the passage tells us, the
administration of sodium pentothal would lower a person’s inhibitions, and
take them into a trance, inducing them to converse casually – as a result of
which, they may provide information based on personal knowledge (testimonial
evidence).
While it may be new technology, and different from thumb impressions or
handwriting samples, the forcible use of narco-analysis may result in the
extraction of testimonial evidence, and so, (a) cannot be the correct answer.
While it may have a physical effect, the end result of the forcible administration
of narco-analysis would be the extraction of testimonial evidence, and so, (c)
cannot be the correct answer.
While (d) may be true, it does not address the issue of whether the forcible
administration of narco-analysis violates the protection against
self-incrimination under Article 20, and so, (d) cannot be the correct answer.

Passage 2
Most civil cases deal with contracts, or promissory notes etc. which are not
matters that involve reckless wrongdoing, or morally reprehensive conduct, in
a majority of cases, the subject matter is irrelevant to the character of persons
so it is never accepted as evidence. Character evidence is thus accepted only in
situations where the facts show that it is relevant. Though the test appears to
be relevant, there are several civil cases where the character of a person
becomes relevant and yet character evidence is excluded. For example in
tortuous claims against assault or negligence, the good character of the
defendant would be relevant, yet character evidence is not accepted in tortuous
claims while it is accepted in criminal actions for the same offences of assault
or negligence. Similarly, in quasi-criminal cases, where features belonging to
classes of action can be found, civil courts do not entertain character evidence
even if it could be accepted in a criminal court for the same offence.
Likewise, it is seen that when criminal charges are involved in a civil suit
character evidence is not admissible. One of the reasons for this in both India
as well as England is stated to be a policy decision in order to restrain civil
proceedings within manageable limits and prevent protracted legal
proceedings. It is said that such a move has been made in order to prevent
unfairness to civil litigants as they cannot be expected, to protect themselves
against allegations of bad character which may range over their whole life.
However, this reasoning should hold good for criminal cases as well, as
character evidence in criminal cases may also involve imputations that may
range throughout one’s life. The reason for allowing for character evidence,
here maybe because of the fact that the repercussions of a criminal trial are
different from that of a civil case. Criminal cases involve the possibility of
imprisonment. For example, the Indian Penal Code provides imprisonment of
three months for assault without grave and sudden provocation. While a
tortious claim against assault will only result in damages. This might be one of
the reasons behind admitting character evidence in criminal cases. Character
Evidence When Admissible- Thus we can see that character evidence in civil
cases is admissible when the character of the party or third party is a fact in
issue the character of the party or third party becomes relevant from the facts
of the case, that is when it is needed as circumstantial evidence to prove
another fact in issue. The character of a witness is in question.

1)Remedy against the offence of assault can be claimed under

(a) Law of Tort
(b) Indian Penal Code
(c) Both a and b
(d) None of the above
Answer: (c)
Rationale: In a tortuous claim against assault or negligence, the good character
of the defendant would be relevant, yet character evidence is not accepted in
tortuous claims while it is accepted in criminal actions for the same offences of
assault or negligence.
2: Whether character evidence​ is​ admissible in a civil suit from criminal action?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Maybe
(d) Not sure
Answer: (b)
Rationale: when criminal charges are involved in a civil suit character​ evidence
is not admissible.
3. Why is character evidence not admissible in civil cases
(a) In civil cases the society at large is not affected thus it is unfair that the
accused should carry a bad image for the rest of his life
(b) In civil cases the society at large is affected thus it is unfair that the
accused should carry a bad image for the rest of his life
(c) In civil cases the society at large is not affected thus it is fair that the
accused should carry a bad image for the rest of his life
(d) In civil cases the society at large is affected thus it is fair that the accused
should carry a bad image for the rest of his life
Answer: (a)

Rationale: One of the reasons for this in both India as well as England is stated
to be a policy decision in order to restrain civil proceedings within manageable
limits and prevent protracted legal proceedings. It is said that such a move has
been made in order to prevent unfairness to civil litigants as they cannot be
expected, to protect themselves against allegations of bad character which may
range over their whole life.
4. What is the punishment prescribed for the offence of assault under the Law
of Tort?
(a) 3 months imprisonment​
(b) Damages
(c) Both a and b
(d) Only a
Answer: (b)
Rationale: a tortious claim against assault will only result in damages

PRACTISE EXERCISE
Supreme Court of India in the case of Arun Kumar Manglik vs Chirayu
Hospital passed a judgement holding that while treating a patient medical
professional should adopt a patient-centric approach. The Apex Court found
the hospital negligent and granted compensation to the Appellant.
In the above case Late Mrs. Madhu Manglik upon showing the symptoms of
dengue fever was admitted to Chirayu Hospital at about 7 AM on 15.11.2009.
The Patient was checked at intervals, given medicines, and diagnosed and
blood reports were also taken periodically. The patient while in the hospital had
a second cardiac arrest at 08:00 PM and was declared dead by the Respondent
hospital at 08:50 PM.
The Appellant filed a medical negligence Complaint before the Medical Council
of India. The Ethics Committee of the MCI on 20.02.2015 came to a conclusion
that the treating doctors had administered the treatment to the patient in
accordance with the established medical guidelines, however, the treatment
was not provided in a timely manner.
The Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission Disputes
Redressal Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 48 Lakhs on the ground
that his spouse suffered an untimely death due to the medical negligence of the
treating doctors of the Respondent hospital. The SCDRC gave a judgement on
that a case of medical negligence was established and directed the
Respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs with the interest at the rate
of 9 per cent per annum to the Appellant. The National Commission Disputes
Redressal Commission reversed the findings and dismissed the Judgement of
SCDRC.
The Supreme Court of India held that considering the cases of Bolam vs Friern
Hospital and Jacob Mathew vs the State of Punjab held that a medical
practitioner must take a reasonable degree of care, and such care must be in
accordance with utmost responsibility and reasonability. Further the Apex
Court held that the Respondent hospital treated the patient according to the
standard medical guidelines but failed to provide timely treatment. Hence the
Respondent failed to satisfy the standard of reasonable care as laid down in the
Bolam Case.
The Apex Court setting aside the Judgement of NCDRC held the hospital is
liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 15 Lakhs. However, the Court was of the
view that the Director of the hospital is not personally liable as he was neither
the treating doctor nor an advising doctor.
1According to the passage select the statement that can be most plausibly
inferred from the author's reasoning:
(a) Patient centric approach refers to a transgression from conventional modes
of treatment.
b) Patient centric approach refers to dealing with each case specifically in a
responsible and timely manner.
(c) Patient centric approach refers to providing the most advanced medical
facilities to every patient.
(d) Patient centric approach refers to dealing with every case in the traditional
manner.
2. Which of the following fact is true with respect to the context of the case
mentioned in the passage?
(a) The treating doctors administered the treatment to the patient which was in
accordance with the established medical guidelines.
(b) The patient dies as a result of dengue
(C) The patient dies due to a cardiac arrest.
d)Both (a) and (b).
3. Which of the following correctly describes the judgement given in the case?
(a) It was held that the doctors followed the prescribed medical treatment.
b)It was held that the doctors failed to provide timely treatment.
(c) It was held that the patient died of natural causes.
(d)Both (a) and (b).
3. X was admitted to Hospital Z where he was diagnosed positive for corona
virus. X underwent treatment for a week and was thereafter discharged after
being successfully treated. X went to Hospital Y for a second opinion where he
came to know that he had a common flu and was not affected by corona virus.
He sued Hospital Z. Decide.
a) The hospital is liable as they were negligent in their diagnosis.
(b) The hospital is not liable as they successfully treated X.
(c) The hospital is not liable as they followed the prescribed medical guidelines.
(d) The hospital is liable as they were committed fraud.
4. A was admitted to Hospital B for an eye surgery. The doctors at the hospital
used the Laser technology for the surgery and successfully administered the
treatment. Later, A came to know that the same surgery could have happed by
the latest LASIK technology which would have taken far less time to conduct
and would have been more patient friendly. He sued Hospital B for the same.
Decide.
(a) The hospital is liable as they had a better alternative.
(b) The hospital is liable as they were negligent in their job.
c) The hospital is not liable.
(d) Both (a) and (b).