Experts & Views
CERTAIN CLAT PG QUESTIONS ANSWERED WRONGLY IN THE ANSWER KEY
Through this post I would like to bring to the light certain questions in the CLAT PG exam which have been answered wrongly in the answer key and whose answers have remain the same even after revision of the answer key by the exam committee.
The following answers have been marked wrongly in the CLAT answer key for PG exam;
|
Q. |
Assertion (A) – It is easy to identify sociological school with pound. |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): Both (A and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) |
|||||
|
2. (B): Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A) |
||||||
|
3. (C): (A) is true, but (R) is false |
||||||
|
4. (D): (A) is false, but (R) is true |
Correct answer should be option 2
Justification for option 2
The Correct answer should be 2 and not 1. It is so because it is easy to identify sociological school with Pound because of his immense contribution to it AND NOT because the school neither begins nor ends with Pound.
The same question also appears as question 294 on Page 64 of the Universal’s Guide to LLM Entrance Examination, 3rd Edn by Gaurav Mehta. There also the correct answer is option 2.
|
Q. |
Assertion (A): – The President of India can issue a proclamation of emergency under Article 352(1) of Constitution on the advice of the Prime Minister. |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): both A and R are true and R is correct explanation of A |
|||||
|
2. (B): both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A |
||||||
|
3. (C): A is true but R is false |
||||||
|
4. (D): A is false but R is true |
Correct answer should be option 4
Justification for Option 4
As per Article 352 (3) of the Constitution of India, it is the advice of the Union Cabinet and not just the PM on which the President can declare emergency.
As per the original constitution, President could declare emergency on the sole advice of the PM but by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, passed in the aftermath of the infamous emergency of 1975, article 352 was amended to explicitly say that the Cabinet’s and not just PM’s advice would be required.
Hence, A is wrong and option 4 is correct.
|
Q. |
Assertion (A): – An accused person cannot be compelled to be witness against himself. |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation of A |
|||||
|
2. (B): Both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A |
||||||
|
3. (C): A is true but R is false |
||||||
|
4. (D): A is false but R is true |
Correct answer should be option 3
Justification for Option 3
An accused person can be compelled to give his thumb impression and that is not barred by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
The same has been held by the Supreme Court of India in- The State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others, AIR 1961 SC 1808;
“(4) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification were not included in the expression to be a witness.
(5) 'To be a witness' means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or a statement in writing, made or given in Court or otherwise.
(6) 'To be a witness' in its ordinary grammatical sense means giving oral testimony in Court. Case law has gone beyond this strict literal interpretation of the expression which may now bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in Court or out of Court by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing.”
|
Q |
Principle: If any person enters into wagering or betting agreements, such agreements would be illegal and cannot be given effect for enforcing obligations. |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): Agreement is a wager and even if Birbal’s house is destroyed, he cannot claim price from Akbar. |
|||||
|
2. (B): Valid contract and can be enforced if Birbal’s house is destroyed. |
||||||
|
3. (C): Akbar and Birbal are betting and thus it is not a contract. |
||||||
|
4. (D): None of the above. Correct answer should be option 2 Justification for Option 2 |
|
The answer should be 2 as the agreement is not a wager but a fire insurance contract. Since it is not a wager, it is valid. Similar illustrations have been given in sections 31, 33, 35 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 all of which are valid contracts. |
|
Q. |
Principle: A man must not make such use of his property as unreasonably and unnecessarily to cause inconvenience to his neighbors. |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): Y cannot take any other action against Z. |
|||||
|
2. (B): Z can do something to prevent the foul smell. |
||||||
|
3. (C): Y can complain to the police |
||||||
|
4. (D): Y can sue Z for damages based on the inconvenience caused by Z. |
Correct answer should be option 4
Justification for option 4
It is clear that applying the principle in the question the correct option is 4 and not 1. The problem is based on the concept of nuisance in torts and the following case laws lay down the law clearly in favour of option 4;
- St. Helen Smelting Co. v. Tipping (fumes from defendant’s manufacturing works damaging plaintiff’s trees and shrubs held to be a nuisance).
- Wood v. Conway Corp. (similar case)
- Soltou v. De Held (constant daily ringing of a peal of a heavy bell in a house actually adjoining a private residence was held to be an actionable nuisance)
- Datta Mal Chiranji Lal v. Lodh Prasad (running o an electric mill amounted to nuisance which should not be permitted)
- Others- Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad Sharma, Christie v Davey, Palmer v. Loder.
- It will be in violation of Article 226(4) which says that powers of High court in writ proceedings shall not be in derogation of power of Supreme Court under Article 32(2).
Also, Z act is actionable since he could have taken reasonable measures like proper disposal of cow dung to avoid the nuisance. So, it is but obvious that the only correct option in this case can be 4.
|
Q. |
Principle: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors. |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): Yes, because in Indian tradition, guests are like Gods. |
|||||
|
2. (B): No, because one has to be himself cautious about his safety. |
||||||
|
3. (C): Yes, because it is the occupier’s duty to take care of its visitors. |
||||||
|
4. (D): No, because he himself is guilty of theft. He is no longer an invitee or visitor. |
Correct Option should be 3
Justification for option 3
In this question, Akash ceases to be an invitee and becomes a trespasser when he commits the theft. But the law is not absolutely against trespassers. It says that an occupier also owes a certain amount of duty of care towards a trespassers. This position has been affirmed in a plethora of case laws where the trespasser was injured or died because of electrocution, spring gun etc. Case laws-Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar, Ramanuj Mudali . M Gregory, Lowery v. Walker.
|
Q. |
“Natural law is based on the nature of man and on his inward need of living in society”. Who said it? |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): Hugo Grotius |
|||||
|
2. (B): Hobbes |
||||||
|
3. (C): Locke |
||||||
|
4. (D): Rousseau |
Correct answer should be option 1
Justification for option 1
Grotius said that natural law is based on the nature of man and on his inward need of living in society. Grotius’s concept of ‘Appetitus societatis’ also referred to by N. M. Korkunov, W. G. Hastings at Pg. 24-25 in their book ‘General Theory of Law’ is an authority on the issue.
Also, para 3 on page 148 in N.V. Paranjape’s Book on Jurisprudence also affirms the same.
|
Q. |
Assertion (A): – A Habeas Corpus writ petition dismissed by the Supreme Court can be admitted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): Both A & R are true and R is correct explanation |
|||||
|
2. (B): Both A & are true but R is not the correct explanation of A |
||||||
|
3. (C): A is true but R is false |
||||||
|
4. (D): A is false but R is true |
Correct answer should be either option 2 or option 4
Justification for Option 2
A writ of habeas corpus dismissed by Supreme Court can be admitted by the High Court because writ of habeas corpus in not barred by res judicata and not because the Supreme Court and High Court have concurrent writ jurisdiction.
In fact, despite having concurrent jurisdiction, Daryao v. State of UP, says that res judicata applies to writ proceedings. And therefore the rule is that neither can a writ dismissed by high court be filed in Supreme Court nor the vice-versa (Metal Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Cal 15).
So, option 1 would have been the correct choice if the reason would have been that- Res judicata does not apply in case a writ of habeas corpus.
Justification for Option 4
In this case, statement A or assertion is wrong because if the High Court admits the writ petition rejected by the Supreme Court,
|
Q. |
Assertion (A): – The Constitution vests executive powers of the Union in the President of India. |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A |
|||||
|
2. (B): both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A. |
||||||
|
3. (C): A is true but R is false |
||||||
|
4. (D): A is false but R is true |
Correct answer should be either 1 or 2
Justification
This is an ambiguous and debatable question. Such question should not be asked as an objective type question because it can be answered in multiple ways.
Since its not wrong to say that R is the reason for A, I think it is an ambiguous questions and option 1 and 2, both can be correct.
|
Q. |
Who amongst the following is disqualified from inheriting the estate of a Hindu male : |
|
||||
|
Ans |
1. (A): unchaste daughter |
|||||
|
2. (B): unchaste widow |
||||||
|
3. (C): rich daughter |
||||||
|
4. (D): none of the above |
The correct option is 2
Justification for option 2
In Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu, 1999 Supp(4) SCR 522 the Supreme Court while adjudicating in a similar issue upheld the decision of a previous Madras High Court case wherein it had been held that an unchaste hindu widow cant inherit from the estate of her dead husband. Moreover, as per S. 125(4) also, a hindu wife is not entitled to claim maintenance if she lives in adultery.
So far as my analysis is concerned, I have expressed it in the post above. Please share your opinion if you think that there can be any other answer which should be the correct one.
KAMLESH SHARMA
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Finally someone came for this
& question ID:318, somewhere I have read one case relating to it, and the answer was similar to that, which was given by CLAT convener.
except these two questions, everything is fine.
please guide us on these two question.
The answers to these questions listed below are erroneous even in the new revised list.
Question ID : 228 - Main pioneer of the sociological jurisprudence is:
(A): Montesquieu - AS PER NEW ANSWER KEY
(B): Hegel
(C): Sir Henry Maine
(D): None of the above - THE CORRECT ANSWER (as the main pioneer is Roscoe Pound)
Question ID : 298 Choose the best option :
(A): the President of India is eligible for re-election as many times as he desires - AS PER NEW ANSWER KEY
(B): the President of India is ineligible for re-election
(C): the President of India cannot be re-elected for more than three terms
(D): the President of India can seek re-election as many times under the letter of Constitution, but there is well established convention that he should not seek re-election for more than two terms - THE CORRECT ANSWER
Question ID : 343 In a bailable offence, the bail is granted as a matter of right :
(A): by the police officer
(B): by the court
(C): both by the police officer & the court - AS PER NEW ANSWER KEY
(D): either by police officer or court - THE CORRECT ANSWER
Question ID : 322 Principle: A man must not make such use of his property as unreasonably and unnecessarily to cause inconvenience to his neighbours.
Fact: Mr. Z is the owner of a plot measuring 50 feet by 80 feet. He constructed a small house at one corner and was using the rest of the land as a cow shed. He had 20 cows and is involved in selling milk to the public. The cow dung and other wastes were openly stored in a small 10 feet by 8 feet tank. This constantly paved the way for bad smell and breeding of mosquitoes. Mrs. Y, his neighbour, constantly complained to X, but in vain.
(A): Y cannot take any other action against Z. - AS PER NEW ANSWER KEY
(B): Z can do something to prevent the foul smell.
(C): Y can complain to the police
(D): Y can sue Z for damages based on the inconvenience caused by Z. - THE CORRECT ANSWER
Question ID : 321 A driver of a tourist bus, while negotiating an unmanned railway crossing at a speed of 30 kmph clashed against a passenger train. Consequently, one of the tourists was killed. On investigation, it was found that the driver could not stop the bus because of a defect in the brakes not known to him. Is he guilty of negligence?
(A): No - THE CORRECT ANSWER
(B): Yes - AS PER NEW ANSWER KEY
(C): No, this is act of God
(D): None of the above
Question is meaning of consensus ad idem,ans should be meeting of minds, but ans is not dis in the checked sheet. Even if you Google, it will show meeting of minds as the meaning!
There might be many other errors as well.
The latest and the most authenitic case law on the point is Minerva Mills v. Union of India. The said case law lays down both are complementary to each other.
I would like to draw your attention towards the following excerpt of the Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu, 1999 Supp(4) SCR 522;
"In a very illuminating judgment, in paragraph 12 Viswanatha Sastri, J. observed:
It is a well settled rule of Hindu Law- a rule that is inconformity with popular sentiment that-unchastely disqualifies a widow from succession to her husband's estate. The textual authorities on this point will be found assembled in the judgment in keri Kolitany v. Monseram Kolita, 13 Beng. L.B.I. the text requires that the widow must be chaste not only when the inheritance of her deceased husband opens but also thereafter. A text attributed to Vridha Manu says:
The wife alone, being sonless and keeping the bed of her lord unsullied and leading a life of religious observance, may take his entire estate. Katyayana also declares:
Let the sonless widow, preserving unsullied the bed of her lord and bidding with her venerable protector, enjoy with moderation the (husband's) property until her death Other texts state as 'half the body' of her deceased husband the widow takes his property in default of male issue. The above text show that not only that the sonless widow's right in her husband's property is a mere right of enjoyment but that the exercise of that right is dependent on her chastity. The use of the present participle form implies that chastity is imposed as a permanent condition of the widow's enjoyment of her husband's estate and that a violation of that condition would involve a forfeiture of the right. But European writers, like Colebrooke and English Judges who had to administer the Hindu law, in their concern for ensuring certainty of titles to property and their leanings against a divestiture of estates once vested, declared the law to be that a sonless widow who was chaste at the time of her husband's death inherited his estate and that a widow who had once inherited the estate of her husband was not liable to forfeit it by reason of her subsequent unchastity. The law was thus settled by the Judicial Committees in Maniram Kolita v. Keri Kolitany 5 Cal. 776 P.C. and this has been the accepted rule of Hindu law ever since. Unchastity disentitles a Hindu widow to maintenance. Maintenance being a recurring right her continued chastity is a condition of her right to receive maintenance and she would forfeit her right by reason of her unchastity even though maintenance has been decreed to her by a Court. Lakshmichand v. Mt. Anandi 57 All 672 P.C. Kandasami v. Murugammal and Nagamma v. Virabhadra 17 Mad. 392. If there has been a lapse from chastity the widow would be entitled only if she reforms her ways, and even then only to a starving maintenance. Satyabhama v. Kesavacharya 39 Mad. 658. The widows of coparceners in a joint Hindu family are in fact and in law members of the family with rights in or over the family property by way of maintenance. Raghunanda Deo v. Brozokishore Patta Deo 1 Mad 69; Kalyani Vittaldas v. Commissioner of income-tax I.L.B. (1937) 1 Cal 653 (PC) and Vedathunni v. Commissioner of Income-tax 56 Mad 1. The requirement of Chastity as a condition of their maintenance from the family property is therefore intelligible."
The tenor of the judgment makes it clear that supreme court has endorsed the decision of the Madras High Court. Also, the answer would have been different had it been a case of subsequent unchastity, but the impugned question is not about subsequent unchastity.
Kamlesh Sharma
Fact: Surendra received divine orders in his sleep at night to sacrifice his one year old child and then he will go to heaven after dying. He carries out the order and kills his son.
Question ID : 329
Ans 1. (A): Guilty of murder (correct answer)
2. (B): Not guilty of any offence since it was the order of God
3. (C): Can plead unsoundness of mind as a defense and he should not be charged for murder. (as per clat key)
4. (D): Cannot be held liable for murdering his own child.
refer to Paras ram vs state of punjab
Question ID : 305
Ans 1. (A): A legal duty (as per clat key)
2. (B): A specific legal duty (specific legal duty)
3. (C): A legal as well as moral duty
4. (D): A legal as well as social duty
refer to any standard book on torts....R K bangia, Ratanlal and dhirajlal
2.(B): A specific legal duty (correct answer)
Joint session of parliament was summoned by the president to pass:
Ans : 1. (A): Dowry Prohibition Act (Also Correct but not given in answer key)
2. (B): Banking Service Commission Act
3. (C): Prevention of Terrorism Act (As per the answer key)
4. (D): All of the above Acts
The Answer key says that only the Prevention of terrorism act, 2002 was passed in the joint session of the parliament but Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was the first act to be enacted in the joint session. So far, only three bills - the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1978, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 - have been passed at joint sessions. Since the question had two possible answers this should have been considered as an ambiguous question.
could you please provide the page no. of that particular book?
because I have read somewhere in the question bank, where answer is specific legal duty only, but for reference I need, page no, if you could provide..
I would like to know, what is the current status of this exam?
It doesn't matter, from where questions have been taken, but it does, when answers to those questions are wrong,
We all are aware that t least 6 questions in CLAT, PG 2015 are wrong.
so what are they doing?
whether they are considering these questions?
Legally India, please provide this information, we would be thankful to you.
All these questions and many more are decided by our Honorable supreme court and are settled principles of law. If you are making things doubtful in settled principles then how a candidate can attempt any question paper.
The clat authorities should accept their fault and should make necessary corrections and then they should again look into the issues of candidates and ensure that injustice is not been done to anyone.
under chapter 11: negligence...sub-head: essentials of negligence...in the very first essential i.e "duty of care to the plaintiff", it is given in 3rd line tht "the plaintiff has to establish that the defendant owed to him a SPECIFIC LEGAL DUTY to take care, of which he has made a breach"
Question ID : 335
1. (A): valid
2. (B): irregular (CLAT ANSWER KEY)
3. (C): void
4. (D): either (A) or (C)
Although as per sunni law, the marriage would be only irregular but as per shia law, the fifth marriage is void.
Since the question only used the general term 'MUSLIM MAN', therefore both (B) and (C) seem to be correct.
In a historic judgement by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court directed CLAT authorities to review further the faulty answer key of CLAT Authority by appointing another Expert Committee for UG candidates. Sir, can anyone point out to further review the PG Answer Key which are being willingly avoided by the CLAT Authorities?
In a historic judgement by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court directed CLAT authorities to review further the faulty answer key of CLAT Authority by appointing another Expert Committee for UG candidates. Sir, can anyone point out to further review the PG Answer Key which are being willingly avoided by the CLAT Authorities?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first