LEGAL REASONING

PASSAGE-1

Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of
public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties
with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. Some public
servants do not measure up to this benchmark. Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to
put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by a public servant. It also aims to
protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against
them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of
the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a
socially useful measure conceived in the public interest, it should be liberally construed to
bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent
harassment of the honest among them. If a public servant takes gratification other than his
legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under the Prevention of
Corruption Act (PCA).
Mr. Gangaprasad is a peon in a government electricity department. The department has a
huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decide to disconnect all
electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid a
bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr.
Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.
Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad were that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill and
had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as
envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the
State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the
High Court which allowed the appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not
a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his
trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction. Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public
Servant as "Every person appointed in the service or pay of the Government, remunerated by
fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government"

1. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal
remuneration.
(a) Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA act
(b) Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under the PCA act.
(c) Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.
(d) Both Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.

2. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following would be
most correct:
(a) When public servants face a dilemma between personal and professional obligations they
can compromise with the values such as integrity, fair play and objectivity.
(b) Prevention of Corruption Act has become legally and socially undesirable due to
unchecked and unabated level of corruption.
(c) Socio-legal instruments such as Prevention of Corruption Act must be interpreted
expansively to tackle the malaise of corruption.
(d) Corruption is anti-thesis to good governance. Therefore, the presence of corruption is a
violation of the rights of the citizens.

3. Municipal Councillor is elected by the people. Balkrishna, a Municipal Councillor, was

prosecuted under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Balkrishna contended that as a
Municipal Councillor was not a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 21 of the
Indian Penal Code, he could not be prosecuted under the Act. Decide whether Balkrishna is a
Public Servant under Section 21 IPC or not?
(a) No, Balkrishna is not a Public Servant, since he is not in the service and performing
public duty by the Government.
(b) Yes, Balkrishna is a Public Servant, since he has taken an oath to serve the public.
(c) Yes, Balkrishna is a Public Servant, since he is a Municipal Councillor who are
undoubtedly acting in the public interest and serving the basic needs of the people who
elected them.
(d) No, Balkrishna is not a Public Servant, since does not owe his appointment to any
governmental authority.

4. Laljit is the member of the Managing Committee of the co-operative societies and the
Chairman of such cooperative societies. Members are appointed as per the rules of the co-
operative societies. Co-operative societies are the extended limbs of the Government. Laljit
was caught red-handed taking bribe. He agitated before the Judge that he is not a public
servant for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Decide whether Laljit is a Public Servant under Section 21 IPC or not?
(a) No, Laljit is not a Public Servant, since he is not acting in the course of employment of
Co-operative Society while taking the bribe.
(b) Yes, Laljit is a Public Servant, since he has taken bribe he should be considered as a
public servant.
(c) Yes, Laljit is a Public Servant, since he is a Member appointed as per the rules.
(d) No, Laljit is not a Public Servant, since Managing Committee members are elected
entities.

5. It is a principle of Criminal Law that Penal Statutes are to be construed strictly. Based on
the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on this principle of criminal law?
(a) Author would welcome such principle as it seeks to limit the State Authority.
(b) Author would welcome such a principle as it will make the environment conducive and
save the Public Servants from unnecessary and vexatious prosecutions.
(c) Author would oppose such a principle as it will have a detrimental impact on the norms of
public service and instill lethargy in the administration.
(d) Author would oppose the strict interpretation of Prevention of Corruption since it will
undermine the public interest and produce an undesirable object.

PASSAGE-2

The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure
of matters related to the public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The
declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a
long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry with more
relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of the People Act passed
way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme
Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express
lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the
RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as
the judges' personal assets.
The judgment's majority opinion emphasized the need for transparency and accountability
and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the
right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right
of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of
serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.
The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments
will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that
specifies that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a
strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative
democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to
the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.
Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and
could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions
such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area
today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens
from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.

1. Why does the author feel that the disclosure of information relating to the personal assets
of public authorities is beneficial in the larger interest?
(a) Because it puts restrictions on judges to amass assets disproportionate to their known
sources of income.
(b) Because political leaders will fear judges.
(c) Because it brings transparency in public institutions and reduces corruption.
(d) Because the RTI act is a citizen's charter and no application relating to public authorities
can be denied.

2. On what grounds, until the judgement, according to the author, judges refused to disclose
information regarding their personal assets?
(a) They are not elected representatives and not answerable to the public.
(b) Their personal assets do not concern any public interest.
(c) The moment a person becomes a member of the higher judiciary, their personal assets get
constitutional sanctity.
(d) Judges have to be trusted for the judicial system to have efficacy.

3. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He
refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.
(a) Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under
RTI.
(b) Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of
People Act, 1951.
(c) Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.
(d) Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.

4. Sukriti files an RTI application to know about the places a Supreme Court judge visited,
during his family vacations in Europe. Based on the passage, decide.
(a) Sukriti's application will be accepted as Supreme Court judges come under RTI.
(b) Sukriti's application will be accepted as foreign trips are made from unlawful income.
(c) Sukriti's application will be rejected as Supreme Court judges do not come within RTI.
(d) Sukriti's application will be rejected as there is no public interest involved and violates the
right to privacy of the judge.

5. "Kindian Kolaveri Di" was registered as a political party recently. After the RTI
judgement, what impact would it have on this political party?
(a) "Kindian Kolaveri Di" will have to mandatorily disclose its funding except through
electoral bonds.
(b) "Kindian Kolaveri Di" will have to mandatorily disclose its funding including through
electoral bonds.
(c) "Kindian Kolaveri Di" may be mandated to disclose its funding.
(d) "Kindian Kolaveri Di" cannot be forced to disclose its funding through electoral bonds.

PASSAGE-3

The Supreme Court in October 2019 recalled the two directions passed last year by its two-
judge bench, which diluted the provisions of arrest under the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The apex court's three-judge bench
restored the earlier position of the law by recalling two directions in the 20 March 2018
verdict, which provided no absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail and prior inquiry
before effecting the arrest of a public servant and private individual under the Act. Thus,
criticizing the verdict which provided for prior sanction from the appointing authority before
the arrest of a public servant under the SC/ST Act, the bench said that it is contrary to
legislative intent and not at all statutorily envisaged. The top court also expressed displeasure
with another direction which provided for seeking approval of Senior Superintendent of
Police (SSP) before the arrest of a private individual under the Act.
It dealt with false cases lodged under the SC/ST Act, which was the basis of March 2018
verdict, and said: "There is no presumption that the members of the SCs/STs may misuse the
provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper Castes or the
members of the elite class". "For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a
person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor.
Caste is not attributable to such an act," the bench said, adding that it cannot be the case that a
report by upper-caste has to be registered immediately and arrest can be made forthwith,
whereas, in case of an offence under the SC/ST Act, it would be a conditioned one.
It said that members of SC/ST cannot be put to a disadvantageous position in comparison to
upper caste people and "what legislature cannot do legitimately, cannot be done by the
interpretative process by the courts". "We conclude with a pious hope that a day would come,
as expected by the framers of the Constitution when we do not require any such legislation
like Act of 1989, and there is no need to provide for any reservation to SCs/STs/ OBCs, and
only one class of human exist equal in all respects and no caste system or class of SCs/STs or
OBCs exist, all citizens are emancipated and become equal as per Constitutional goal," it
said.

1. What all directions regarding arrest under the SC/ST Atrocity Act were provided by the
two-judge bench of Supreme Court in its judgement in March 2018?
(a) Before the arrest of an individual or public servant prior permission of SSP or the
appointing public authority, as the case may be, is to be obtained.
(b) Before registering an FIR against an individual or public servant prior written permission
of SSP or the appointing public authority, as the case may be, is to be obtained.
(c) Any person whether individual or public servant can be arrested without registration of an
FIR.
(d) Except for public servant, any individual can be arrested without prior permission under
the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

2. On what legal grounds was the verdict diluting SC/ST Atrocities Act overruled?
(a) It did not correctly interpret the term 'arrest' under the act.
(b) It was given by non-competent judges.
(c) It violated principles of non-arbitrariness and fair play.
(d) It did not correctly interpret the intent of the act.

3. Mohan abused 'X', a person of SC community on January 1, 2020. He is arrested under the
SC/ST Atrocity Act. Decide.
(a) Mohan's arrest is unlawful.
(b) Mohan's arrest is lawful.
(c) Mohan and 'X' both have to be arrested.
(d) Only 'X' is to be arrested.

4. Upon the pronouncement of the three-judge bench verdict in October 2019, restoring
ST/ST Atrocities Act dilution, Karan, a CLAT aspirant filed a writ petition in the Supreme
Court challenging reservations in CLAT examinations. Decide.
(a) Karan's petition will succeed.
(b) Karan's petition will fail as it is based on observation and not the ratio of the case.
(c) Karan is himself giving CLAT and therefore an interested party.
(d) Only the Central or State government can challenge reservation.

5. Suppose the March 2018 verdict was not overruled. Mr. Rakesh, a government official
appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, abuses a person of ST community. A case under
the SC/ST Atrocities Act is registered against him. Decide the correct course of action in this
case.
(a) Mr. Rakesh can be arrested and the Ministry of Home Affairs has to be subsequently
informed.
(b) Mr. Rakesh can be arrested provided he is temporarily suspended.
(c) Mr. Rakesh cannot be arrested until sanction from the Ministry of Home Affairs is
obtained.
(d) Mr. Rakesh cannot be arrested until he is permanently removed from service.

Passage – 4
Both Houses of Parliament have passed a Bill making instant triple talaq a criminal offence,
amidst persistent doubts whether it ought to be treated as a crime or just a civil case. It is true
that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019, is a diluted version of
the Bill as it was originally conceived. Earlier, it did not specify who could set the law in
motion. Now the offence is cognizable only if the affected wife, or one related to her by
blood or marriage, files a police complaint. Thirdly, the offence is compoundable, that is, the
parties may arrive at a compromise.
The government says its main objective is to give effect to the Supreme Court's 2017 verdict
declaring instant triple talaq illegal. It claims that despite the court ruling, several instances
have been reported. Making it an offence, the government says, will deter further resort to
triple talaq, and provide redress for women in the form of a subsistence allowance and
custody of children, besides getting the erring husband arrested.
In the light of the Supreme Court ruling on its validity, there is no need to declare instant
triple talaq a criminal offence. The practice has no approval in Islamic tenets and is indeed
considered abhorrent. Secondly, once it has been declared illegal, pronouncing talaq does not
have the effect of "instantaneous and irrevocable divorce" as this Bill claims in its definition
of 'talaq'. The provisions that allow a woman to claim a subsistence allowance from the man
and seek custody of her children can be implemented in the event of the husband abandoning
her, even without the man's arrest. If triple talaq, in any form, is void, how the questions of
children's custody and subsistence allowance arise while the marriage subsists, is not clear. 
And then, there is the practical question of how a man can provide a subsistence allowance
while he is imprisoned. It has been argued by Bill's proponents that dowry harassment and
cruelty towards wives are treated as criminal offences even while the marriage subsists. It is a
patently wrong comparison, as those acts involve violence and cruelty and are rightly treated
as criminal offences. The same cannot be said of a man invoking a prohibited form of
divorce.

1. Based on the passage, what legal and other challenges the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019 faces?
(a) An imprisoned husband may not be able to provide for subsistence allowance to his wife.
(b) If triple talaq is void, how can actions like custody of children be legally implemented.
(c) Triple talaq has no sanctity in Muslim religious texts and literature.
(d) All of the above.
2. What all protections, mentioned in the passage, have been given to Muslim women in the
unfortunate event of a triple talaq invocation?
(a) She would get subsistence allowance and custody of the child. Besides, the husband will
be arrested.
(b) She would get a share in the husband's property.
(c) She can file a criminal case against her in-laws like in the case of cruelty and dowry
harassment.
(d) She would be eligible to remarry and live her life on her terms.

3. Fiza married Abdul. Abdul wanted to marry Soha who placed a condition that Abdul
should first divorce Fiza. Abdul gave instant triple talaq to Fiza. Fiza's brother, Shoaib, files a
criminal case against Abdul. Choose the correct option.
(a) The case is not maintainable as only Fiza can file a case.
(b) The case is not maintainable as Soha insisted Abdul to divorce Fiza.
(c) The case is maintainable as Shoaib is a blood relative of Fiza.
(d) The case is maintainable as Shoaib wants to secure his sister's life.

4. Ishan is accused of cruelty to his wife Sapna. Sapna file a complaint case against him.
Based on the information given in the passage, decide.
(a) Ishan has not committed any criminal offence.
(b) Sapna may file a criminal case against Ishan and her in-laws.
(c) Marriage between Ishan and Sapna stands automatically dissolved.
(d) Marriage between Ishan and Sapna does not automatically dissolve.

5. Javed is married to Fatima. He gave triple talaq to her. Fatima registers a case against
Javed. Later, Javed repents and wishes to reunite with Fatima. Will he be legally absolved?
(a) Yes, if Fatima agrees as the offence is compoundable.
(b) Yes, irrespective of Fatima's wish as the offence is compoundable.
(c) No, he cannot avoid legal liability.
(d) No, he has to get Fatima married to another man and get a divorce from him and then
remarry her.

PASSAGE-5
The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for additional guidelines regarding
the execution of condemned prisoners. The Ministry of Home Affairs seeks the incorporation
of measures aimed at reducing the scope for death row convicts to adopt dilatory tactics.
Even though there may be some evidence to believe that convicts tend to file review
petitions, mercy petitions and curative petitions in such a way that their execution is
indefinitely delayed, it is difficult to attribute their conduct to the supposedly "accused-
centric" nature of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan
(2014). These guidelines were undoubtedly aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of
prisoners in the context of a sound body of jurisprudence that maintains that such rights
extend right up to the moment of their execution. The court was anxious about enforcing their
right to be informed about the scope for filing petitions for clemency, for being given legal
assistance in drafting them, and for exploring judicial remedies even after their appeals for
mercy are rejected. Further, the 14-day time lag between the closure of the clemency route
and their hanging is aimed at preventing secret executions.
Strangely, the government wants the Supreme Court to frame a rule imposing a seven-day
limit on the time that convicts have to file a mercy petition after a death warrant is issued.
And that courts, governments and prison authorities should all be mandated to issue death
warrants within seven days of the rejection of mercy petitions and to carry out the sentence
within seven days thereafter. On the need for a time limit for filing curative petitions, the
government is right in believing that the absence of such a stipulation gives scope for
convicts in the same case to take turns to file such petitions. However, there is no sign that
the apex court delays disposal of curative petitions. If and when one is filed, it results in no
more than a few days' delay. In a country that unfortunately retains the death penalty, there is
no excuse for delaying the disposal of any petition, either in court or before constitutional
functionaries. Nor is there any need to expedite executions by revisiting sound guidelines. As
the death penalty is limited to the "rarest of rare" cases, nothing is lost if those facing
executions are allowed to exhaust all possible remedies.

1. Instigating a person to cause death and all the results of instigation amount to murder. A
man was chasing his wife with a stick intending to hit her and threatening to kill her. She in a
hurry jumped out of a window and died as a result. Can the man be held liable for the death
of the woman?
(a) The intention to cause the death of the woman cannot be attributed to the man.
(b) The man did not know the fact that the woman would jump out of the window and as a
result die. He cannot be held liable.
(c) The man should be held liable for her murder, because of his instigation.
(d) It is a case of suicide and not murder.

2. Unexplained/unreasonable/inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petition is one of the

circumstances for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. Navneet Kaur, wife
of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar filed the present Curative Petition, wherein she prayed for
setting aside the death sentence imposed upon Devender Pal Singh Bhullar by commuting the
same to imprisonment for life on the ground of delay of 8 years in the disposal of mercy
petition. Will Navneet Kaur's challenge succeed?
(a) No, since 8 years cannot be considered as the circumstances for commutation of death
sentence to life imprisonment.
(b) Yes, since 8 years can be considered as a violation of the dignity and right to life.
(c) No, since Navneet Kaur has the statutory right to file the Curative Petition.
(d) Yes, since there was strong and sufficient ground of unexplained/inordinate delay of 8
years in the disposal of mercy petition.
3. A curative petition is a lodge on a grave error of law to undo a blatant error of law or its
application. Harshvardhan was convicted of murder. He was convicted by the Sessions Court.
He appealed to High Court but all evidence was against him so he lost in High Court. He
appealed in Supreme Court but lost again due to lack of evidence. Now he wished to lodge
curative petition because he thinks Supreme Court did not think properly on his matter. If
Harshvardhan challenges this decision, based only on the information set out in the given
passage and this question, will he succeed?
(a) Harshvardhan can file a curative petition.
(b) Harshvardhan can file a curative petition before the President of India.
(c) Harshvardhan cannot file a curative petition as his conviction is in a case of murder.
(d) Harshvardhan cannot file a curative petition as there is no mistake of law.

4. All citizens shall have the right to freedom to practice any profession. A restriction which
destroys the very right to freedom guaranteed under the constitution shall be considered an
unreasonable restriction. Death trials have always been considered to be dehumanizing as it
often causes grave mental harassment to the accused. Parliament to prevent such harassment
passed a law banning lawyers to be part of Death trials. If lawyers challenge this decision,
based only on the information set out in the given passage and this question, are the
restrictions justified?
(a) Restriction is justified as it is in the interest of public morality and decency.
(b) Restriction is justified as it is for benefit of the accused group, as they are also a human
being.
(c) Restriction is unreasonable as it defiles the very freedom to practice.
(d) Restriction is invalid as it discriminates between the accused who got the death penalty
and who got life imprisonment.

5. No man shall be deemed as a criminal until and unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kumar, a famous fashion designer was found murdered and the circumstantial evidence
strongly pointed out towards Manu Lal. Vicious propaganda was launched against him, by
certain media houses deeming him to be a murderer and a psychopath. Judgment delivered
holding him guilty. If Lal files curative petition challenging the judgment being influenced by
these acts of the media houses, will he succeed?
(a) Yes, because the media houses were targeting him unnecessarily.
(b) No, because whatever they were saying was probably true.
(c) No, because media has a right to enlighten people about events happening around the
world.
(d) Yes, because until and unless, his guilt was proved before a competent court of law, he
could not be deemed to be the culprit.

PASSAGE-6
'XYZ Ltd' is a company operating in a diverse field of works. Two incidents occurred, one in
a wood factory and the second one in a BMW owned by XYZ. Following are the incidents
provided: 
Wood Factory Incident
'XYZ Ltd' carries out the work of making furniture with the help of lumberjacks employed to
collect timber and bring it to the factory. They are free to cut and stack the wood. They are
not bound to attend the factory and the company only verifies the wood and pays the
lumberjacks based on its quality. Ramu is a lumberjack in the factory who gets hit by a bike
just outside the precinct of the factory while he was going to have lunch nearby.
BMW Incident
'XYZ Ltd' entrusted their six-month-old BMW to a workshop for servicing. XYZ engaged
Arjun to take the car to the workshop and get it back after completion. At the workshop,
Arjun handed over the key of the car to Ram, the owner of the workshop. Ram informed
Arjun that the car will be returned to him the next day, so Arjun left. Raj, an employee of the
workshop was asked to service the BMW. Instead of servicing the car, Raj sneaked it out of
the garage and took it on the highway, where he rammed the car into a motorbike, severally
injuring Mukesh, the pillion rider.
Terms of the Contract are as follow:-
• Clause 1: Employee - A person is an employee if the mode and how he or she carries out his
work is subject to control and supervision of the company.
• Clause 2: An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any
injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words 'in the course of
the employment' means in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and
which is incidental to it.
• Clause 3: An employer is liable for the negligent acts of his servant. The liability of the
employer-employee is both joint and several. A person can be charged simultaneously under
civil law and criminal law.
• Clause 4: Employer is not liable for the wrongful act committed by an independent
contractor employed by him.

1. Ramu has applied for compensation from the factory. Decide whether Ramu is an
employee considering the terms of the contract.
(a) Ramu is an employee of the Company because the latter exercises control over how he
carries out his work.
(b) Ramu is not an employee but an independent contractor as he does not have a fixed
salary.
(c) Ramu is an employee because the Company exercises control over the final quality of the
wood.
(d) Ramu is not an employee of the Company as verification of the quality of wood amounts
to control over the product and not control over the mode and method of work.

2. Mukesh sues XYZ to claim damages. Decide?

(a) XYZ is liable because he is the owner of the car.
(b) XYZ is liable because he is the master and the act was committed by the servant during
his duty.
(c) XYZ is not liable, because Raj is not under his direction and control.
(d) XYZ is liable because his consent for driving the BMW was implied since he handed over
the car key to the garage owner.

3. The state is not liable when the act is in the exercise of sovereign power or performance of
an act of state. A, a traffic policeman removed B's car which was wrongly parked. While
being moved, the car got damaged. A sued the government for the loss incurred by him.
(a) The government is liable as it was a non-sovereign function.
(b) The government is liable as the policeman was negligent in his work
(c) The government is not liable because A parked the car incorrectly.
(d) The government is not liable as it was a sovereign function.
4. A, visited B his friend, and while using the lift, fell from a lift shaft operated by B's servant
and got injured. B had entrusted the job of installing the lift to a certain contractor. A sued B.
Decide.
(a) A will win the suit as B was negligent.
(b) A will win as B will be vicariously liable.
(c) A will lose as B cannot be held vicariously liable.
(d) None of the above

5. The state is not liable when the act is in the exercise of sovereign power or performance of
an act of state. A, a motorcyclist was seriously injured when a truck belonging to the Public
Works Department hit him. The truck was carrying material for the construction of a road
bridge. The truck driver B was negligent in his driving and A sued for the injuries caused.
Decide.
(a) The government is liable as it was a non-sovereign function.
(b) The government is liable as B worked for the government.
(c) The government is not liable as it was a sovereign function.
(d) The government is not liable as B was an independent contractor.

PASSAGE-7

The Framers of the Constitution met and were engaged for months together with the
formidable task of drafting the Constitution on the subject of Centre-State relationship that
would solve all the problems pertaining thereto and frame a system for a long time to come.
During the debates and deliberations, the issues that seemed to crop up at every point were
the States' rights vis-a-vis the Central rights. The Constitution seeks to bolster centripetal
forces in this vast and diverse country, and the Centre's power to appoint Governors is one
such. The Governor's constitutional role has been debated and interpreted through several
cases, but ingenious occupants of the office have managed to push the boundaries with
unprecedented moves. Sagacious occupants have used the Governor's office to promote
national integration. Many others have merely acted as agents of the ruling party at the
Centre.
Using a pliant Governor to undermine a State government or engineer a legislative majority is
an old and secular trick used by all parties at the Centre. State government-Governor conflicts
have hence not been rare, but what makes the current situation extraordinary is the political
context. No other government in the past has sought to construct a centralizing narrative for
the nation as the current one at the Centre, and no government in the past has been as
intolerant towards its diversity. In this schema, the Governor appears to have a critical,
instrumental role. The Governor's role as a link between the State and the Centre shall not be
an imperial one. The office of the Governor must be a dialogic and consultative one. The
combative posturing of a Governor will bring more disarray, no unity. The Centre must treat
State governments with the respect that democratically elected governments deserve. Thus,
after extensive deliberations, the Sarkaria Commission gave the following recommendations:-
• He should be eminent in some walk of life.
• He should be a person from outside the State.
• He should be a detached figure and not too intimately connected with the local politics of
the State.
• He should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and
particularly in the recent past.
[Source (Extracted, with edits, revisions, and with additions): "From Needless fracas: On
Governors vs Kerala and West Bengal governments", The Hindu, JANUARY 20, 2020]

1. Based on the information in the given passage, which of the following, if correct, would
most strengthen Federalism's case?
(a) Imposing Emergency due to constitutional machinery breakdown in a State.
(b) Expansion of Schemes administered in the States by the Union Government.
(c) Presence of Unwritten Constitution resulting in the running of State affairs through
conventions, practices and precedents.
(d) Putting in effect a written Constitution enshrining the powers, duties and limitations of the
Central/Union Government.
Rationale: This question asks you to identify the author reasoning and the option that align
with that reasoning.

2. In Airdale, the government was reduced to a minority after the MLAs withdrew support.
Chief Minister resigned and sought dissolution of the state Assembly. Governor sent a report
to the Union for the imposition of President's Rule. Governor and Prime Minister in their
youth were campaigners and used to work in the same party. Based on the author's tone and
argument, what should be his stand on the dissolution?
(a) Dissolution will be supported because it is aimed at maintaining a constitutional mandate.
(b) Dissolution will not be supported because the Governor should not readily act without
assessing the situation.
(c) Dissolution will be supported provided the Union Government gives its assent.
(d) Dissolution will not be supported because it may undermine the Center-State relation
according to which Governor should not become a mere rubber stamp of the Union.

3. Article 356 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to impose State
Emergency "if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state
cannot be carried on following the provisions of the Constitution". Citizenship provision is in
the Jurisdiction of Union. Nayanjot, the governor of Rajpradesh, sent a report to the President
that Chief Minister of Rajpradesh is creating roadblocks in the implementation of an Act
passed recently by the Union Parliament. Based on the author's reasoning and the mandate of
Article 356 in the passage above, will the imposition of State Emergency be valid:
(a) No, it would not be valid, since the Constitution abhors the imposition of any emergency.
(b) Yes, it would be valid, since it is a clear case of non-compliance with the Constitution.
The law passed by the Union Parliament cannot be refuged by Federal Units.
(c) No, it would not be valid, since Article 356 cannot be imposed when there is no violation
of any provision of the Constitution.
(d) Yes, it would be valid, since the integrity and sovereignty of India are paramount.

4. As clarified by the Supreme Court in the case 'Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs. Union of India
that though governor cannot be prosecuted and imprisoned during his tenure. However, he
can be prosecuted after he/she steps down from the post. Gill was appointed as the Governor
of Namcha. Gill's during a party in a drunken state snatched a gun from the guards and shot at
point-blank a person surrounding him. Based on the information provided, can Gill be
prosecuted during the tenure?
(a) No, he cannot be, since the prosecution cannot be launched against the Governor.
(b) Yes, he can be, since the prosecution must be expedited in such heinous crime
irrespective of the post a person is holding.
(c) No, he cannot be, since the prosecution would violate the precedent as laid down by the
Supreme Court.
(d) Yes, it would be valid, since there is no provision in the Constitution protecting Governor.
Apex Court ruling will be ineffective in the face of absence of a provision in the Constitution.

5. Shivraj, a resident of Mahayan. He is a celebrated jurist and took an active part in the
politics of Mahayan for many years. For the past 10 years, he was engaged in the Supreme
Court as an active counsel. For these 10 years, he never involved himself in the politics of the
day. Recently it came to light that his name was being mooted to be appointed as the
Governor of Mahayan. Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, does the
appointment of Shivraj, will be as per the Sarkaria Commission?
(a) No, the appointment would not be valid, since the Constitution bars such appointment.
(b) Yes, the appointment would be valid, since it is a clear case of non-compliance with the
Sarkaria Commission's recommendations.
(c) No, the appointment would not be valid, since most of the time appoints there party men.
(d) Yes, the appointment would be valid, since the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations
are binding.

ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS

PASSAGE-1

1. b Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (b)
Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under the PCA act. He has only asked/demanded Rs. 2000
bribe but didn't take the same as was denied by Kabir. The principal sets the liability under
PCA only for those who take gratification. The passage says "If a public servant takes
gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally
liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)."
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with the principle provided in the
passage on "taking gratification".

2. c Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation.
You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the
answer choices. The correct answer is (c)
Option (c) follows from the passage. The passage says "As it is a socially useful measure
conceived in the public interest, it should be liberally construed to bring about the desired
object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the
honest among them." Therefore option (c) is the most logical explanation as it calls for a
liberal and expansive interpretation of the law as suggested in the passage.
Incorrect Answers
• Choice (a) - There is nothing in the passage providing such a suggestion. The information is
not given in the passage and the question therefore can be safely eliminated.
• Choice (b) - Argument of undesirability runs contrary to the essence of the passage aiming
at curbing and eliminating corruption.
• Choice (d) - Given options seems to be logical and attractive. However, it fails on the
ground that no such information is provided concerning values of good governance.

3. d Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (d)
A 'public servant' is to discharge his duties following the rules and regulations made by the
Government. On the other hand, a Municipal Councillor does not owe his appointment to any
governmental authority. Such a person is elected by the people and doesn't function under the
command of governmental authority. Therefore, a Municipal Councillor is not a 'public
servant' within the meaning of Sec. 21 IPC.
Incorrect Answers
• Choice (a) - Section 21 talks about the appointment here Councillors are elected.
• Choice (b) - Information related to Oath is irrelevant and can be rejected at the threshold.
• Choice (c) - Given options seems to be logical and attractive. However, it fails the test laid
down in Section 21 for being a public servant. Section 21 does not talk about public
interest/basic needs

4. c Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (c)
A 'public servant' is to discharge his duties following the rules and regulations made by the
Government. Members are appointed as per the rules of the co-operative societies owe their
appointment to any governmental authority. Therefore, they function under the command of
governmental authority. Therefore, Members are 'public servant' within the meaning of Sec.
21 IPC.
Incorrect Answers
• Choice (a) - Section 21 does not talk about the course of employment.
• Choice (b) - Only taking bribe will not qualify a person as a public servant.
• Choice (d) - Given options seems to be irrelevant on the face of information provided in the
passage saying Member is appointed as per the rules of the co-operative societies.

5. d Rationale: This question asks you to identify the author reasoning and the option that
align with that reasoning.
Correct Answer is (d)
Option (d) follows from the passage. The passage says "As it is a socially useful measure
conceived in the public interest, it should be liberally construed to bring about the desired
object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the
honest among them." Therefore option (d) is the most logical explanation as it calls for a
liberal and expansive interpretation of the law as suggested in the passage.
Incorrect Answers
• Choice (a) and (b) - Its information is not given in the passage and the question therefore it
can be safely eliminated.
• Choice (c) - Given options seems to be logical. However, it is external information not
provided anywhere.

PASSAGE-2

1. c Because it brings transparency in public institutions and reduces corruption. This

argument implicitly runs throughout the passage and is explicitly mentioned in the first
paragraph 1st line and third paragraph 2nd line. Option (a) is not correct as RTI does not put
restrictions on amassing of disproportionate assets but only makes the process transparent.
Option (b) is incorrect as political leaders will fear the RTI activists and not judges. Option
(d) is incorrect as the right under RTI is not absolute as mentioned in the second paragraph
(The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute
and this had to be balanced).

2. b Their personal assets do not concern any public interest. The author mentions this reason
in the first paragraph (Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share
information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest.) Option (a)
cannot be reasonably derived from the passage and even, by an imaginary stretch, if it can be,
it is not a better option compared to option (b). Option (c) is incorrect as the passage nowhere
mentions judges getting constitutional sanctity. Option (d) is incorrect as it is outside of the
information supplied in the passage.

3. b Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of
People Act, 1951. The first paragraph mentions this (The Representation of People Act
passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators.) Mr. Ghyanshyam is a
prospective candidate. Option (a) is incorrect as Mr. Ghyanshyam is not a public authority till
he is elected to a public office. Option (c) is incorrect as Representation of People Act
mandates to disclose of personal assets even for prospective candidates. Option (d) is
incorrect as it is not based on information supplied in the passage.

4. d Sukriti's application will be rejected as there is no public interest involved in the

information sought in her application. Only details about personal assets can be obtained and
not every personal thing is done, as judges' right to privacy is also to be protected. Besides,
there is no public interest involved in the information Sukriti seeks in her application.
Passage 2nd paragraph (The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI
Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges.) Option
(a) is incorrect as though Supreme Court judges come within RTI, not every information
about them can be sought. Option (b) is patently incorrect and cannot be derived from
passage. Option (c) is incorrect as Supreme Court judges come within RTI.
5. c "Kindian Kolaveri Di" may be mandated to disclose its funding. Please note that we have
to go only by the information supplied in the passage. In the last paragraph, the author leaves
it uncertain (note the words 'could now') whether the judgement will mandate political parties
to disclose their funding. (Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for
greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI
Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties). Option (a), (b) and (d) are
incorrect as they are making it certain that political parties will have to either compulsorily
disclose funding sources [option (A) & (B)] or they cannot be mandated [option (d)], while
the author is taking a neutral stand.
PASSAGE-3

1. (a) Before the arrest of an individual or public servant prior permission of SSP or the
appointing public authority as the case may be is to be obtained. The author mentions these
conditions in the first paragraph (Criticizing the verdict which provided for prior sanction
from the appointing authority before the arrest of a public servant under the SC/ST Act
seeking approval of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) before the arrest of a private
individual under the Act) Option (b) is incorrect as no prior written permission is necessary
before registration of an FIR. Option (c) is incorrect as it is not based on the information
given in the passage. Option (d) is incorrect as even public servant can be arrested.

2. d It did not correctly interpret the intent of the act. It is mentioned in the first paragraph
(the bench said that it is contrary to legislative intent and not at all statutorily envisaged).
Options (a), (b) and (c) are incorrect as they are not derived from information given in the
passage.

3. b Mohan's arrest is lawful. Note the incident took place in January 2020 that is after the 3-
judge bench overruled the March 2018 judgement in October 2019. Hence, the ratio of the 3-
judge bench would apply. Therefore, no prior approval of SSP is required before Mohan's
arrest. Hence, his arrest is justified and lawful. Consequently, other options are not valid. 'X'
is a victim and his arrest is out of the question.

4. b Karan's petition will fail as it is based on observation and not the ratio of the case. The
last paragraph is a hope by the court, an observation. It is not a ratio which is the binding part
(We conclude with a pious hope that a day would come there is no need to provide for any
reservation to SCs/STs/OBCs, and only and become equal as per Constitutional goal) Hence,
Karan's petition will fail. Option (a) is therefore incorrect. Options (c) and (d) are not based
on information supplied in the passage.
5. c Mr. Rakesh cannot be arrested until sanction from the Ministry of Home Affairs is
obtained. Please note that in the question, it is mentioned that March 2018 judgement is not
overruled. So the ratio of this judgement will apply to this question. It was ruled in this case
that in case of arrest of a public servant prior sanction of appointing public authority is to
obtain. Hence, the option (c) is the best. Options (a), (b) and (d) are therefore incorrect.

PASSAGE-4

1. d All of the above. The author mentions the lacunae of the act in the 3rd paragraph. All
three points are numerically mentioned.

2. (a) She would get subsistence allowance and custody of the child. Besides the husband will
be arrested. The author mentions all these in the second paragraph the last line. Option (b) is
incorrect as nowhere this is mentioned in the passage. Option (c) is drawing an incorrect
analogy with cruelty and dowry harassment. Option (d) is maybe a possible outcome but
cannot be reasonably derived from information given in the passage.

3. c The case is maintainable as Shoaib is a blood relative of Fiza. The first paragraph
mentions who all may register a case (Now the offence is cognizable only if the affected
wife, or one related to her by blood or marriage, files a police complaint). Option (a) is
therefore incorrect. Option (b) is also incorrect as it is not one of the grounds mentioned.
Option (d) may be morally correct but based on the passage, not a valid legal ground.

4. d Marriage between Ishan and Sapna does not automatically dissolve. The author mentions
this while comparing the legal implication of the criminal offence of cruelty with that of
triple talaq. As mentioned in the last paragraph (It has been argued by Bill's proponents that
dowry harassment and cruelty towards wives are treated as criminal offences even while the
marriage subsists). Option (c) is therefore incorrect. Option (a) is incorrect as cruelty is a
criminal offence as mentioned in the last paragraph. Option (b) is incorrect as the fact
whether Sapna may file a case against her in-laws cannot be reasonably inferred from the
passage.

5. a Yes, if Fatima agrees as the offence is compoundable. This is mentioned in the first
paragraph the last line (…Thirdly, the offence is compoundable, that is, the parties may arrive
at a compromise). Option (c) is, therefore, incorrect. Option (b) is incorrect as Fatima's wish
is relevant. Option (d) does not talk about the legal liability of Javed and is anyways not
based on the information given in the passage.

PASSAGE-5

1. c Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (c)
The man has necessitated the woman to act in this manner, and his threatening has caused her
to jump from the window. Therefore, he should be held liable for her murder due to
instigation. Therefore, the only sound choice is option c.
Incorrect Answers
Choice (a), Choice (b) and Choice (d) - Given options are opposite to the essence of the
principle of instigation.

2. d Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (d)
Harshvardhan cannot file a curative petition as there is no mistake of law as the facts clearly
state that he lost due to lack of evidence.
Incorrect Answers
Choice (a), Choice (b) and Choice (c) - Given options are opposite to the essence of the
principle of the curative petition.

3. d Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (d)
Harshvardhan cannot file a curative petition as there is no mistake of law as the facts clearly
state that he lost due to lack of evidence.
Incorrect Answers
Choice (a), Choice (b) and Choice (c) - Given options are opposite to the essence of the
principle of the curative petition.
4. c Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (c)
This restriction is patently illegal as it violates the right of freedom to practice law and is
unreasonable. In this case, the parliament can restrict the death penalty as a punishment.
Incorrect Answers
Choice (a), Choice (b) and Choice (d) - Given options are opposite to the essence of the
principle of freedom and reasonable restriction.

5. d Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (d)
This restriction is patently illegal as it violates the right of freedom to practice law and is
unreasonable. In this case, the parliament can restrict the death penalty as a punishment.
Incorrect Answers
Choice (a), Choice (b) and Choice (c) - Given options are opposite to the essence of the
principle of No man shall be deemed as a criminal until and unless proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.

PASSAGE-6

1. d Rationale: The question asks you to apply the terms of the contract given in the passage
to the given situation. You can consider the clauses given as the principle of law.
The correct option is (d)
Clause 1: Employee - A person is an employee if the mode and how he or she carries out his
work are subject to control and supervision of the company. This Clause is applicable here in
the fact situation to determine the question of employment of Ramu.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the
passage above.

2. c Rationale: The question asks you to apply the terms of the contract given in the passage
to the given situation. You can consider the clauses given as the principle of law.
The correct answer is (c)
Clause 4: Employer is not liable for the wrongful act committed by an independent contractor
employed by him. This Clause is applicable here in the fact situation to determine the
question of damages. Therefore it can be said that Raj is an employee of Ram, who is an
independent contractor and thus Ravi is not under the direction and control of XYZ.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with the clauses of the contract
given.

3. d Rationale: The question asks you to apply the terms of the contract given in the passage
to the given situation. You can consider the clauses given as the principle of law.
The correct answer is (d)
Clause 1: Employee - A person is an employee if the mode and how he or she carries out his
work are subject to control and supervision of the company. This Clause is applicable here in
the fact situation to determine the question of employment. Here the policeman was
performing his sovereign function and hence the government cannot be held liable.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with the clauses of the contract
given.

4. b Rationale: The question asks you to apply the terms of the contract given in the passage
to the given situation. You can consider the clauses given as the principle of law.
The correct answer is (b)
Clause 3: An employer is liable for the negligent acts of his servant. The liability of the
employer-employee is both joint and several. A person can be charged simultaneously under
civil law and criminal law. Therefore, B would be liable as his servant was operating the lift
shaft.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with the clauses of the contract
given.

5. b Rationale: The question asks you to apply the terms of the contract given in the passage
to the given situation. You can consider the clauses given as the principle of law.
The correct answer is (b)
Clause 1: Employee - A person is an employee if the mode and how he or she carries out his
work are subject to control and supervision of the company. This Clause is applicable here in
the fact situation to determine the question of employment. Herein, the government is liable
as B worked for them and was negligent in his work.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with the clauses of the contract
given.

PASSAGE-7

1. d Option (d) follows from the passage. Passage says "No other government in the past has
sought to construct a centralizing narrative for the nation as the current one at the Centre, and
no government in the past has been as intolerant towards its diversity. In this schema, the
Governor appears to have a critical, instrumental role." Therefore option (d) is the most
logical explanation as it calls for limitation, caution and restrains on the Union.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the
passage above.
• Option (a) - It cannot be a correct answer, since it is against the stand and spirit in favor of
federal structure.
• Choice (b) - Expansion of Central Scheme will only increase the role of Union.
• Option (c) - It cannot be a correct answer, since it is against the basic argument in favor of
federalism.
2. d Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (d)
The central idea of the passage is that the Governor holds a significant position. The
government may abuse the same. Therefore, the only sound choice is an option (d).
Incorrect Answers
• Choice (a) - It is incorrect and inconsistent with the author's stand and argument in favor of
federal features of Constitution.
• Choice (b) - Given options seems to be logical, coherent and reasonable. However, it fails to
take into account the essence of the passage.
• Choice (c) - It is contrary to the author's stand. Choice (c) puts the Union Government in a
higher and dominant position which the author would not like to encounter.

3. b Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (b)
The idea of the passage is that Federal features hold a significant position and the mandate of
Article 356 is that the government of the state cannot be carried on following the provisions
of the Constitution. In this case, refusal to apply the Union law cannot be but the violation of
Constitutional Provision. Therefore, the only sound choice is option b.
Incorrect Answers
• Choice (a) - It is a piece of information not given in the passage and the question therefore it
can be safely eliminated.
• Choice (c) - Given options seems to be logical and attractive. However, it fails to take into
account the mandate of Article 356.
• Choice (d) - This information not given in the passage. It is contrary to the author's stand. It
puts the Union Government in a higher and dominant position which the author would not
like to encounter. Additionally, the spirit of Article 356 is missing here.

4. c Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference, the precedent of the
Supreme Court and look at the facts situation and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (c)
In the case of 'Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs. Union of India, it is held that the governor
cannot be prosecuted and imprisoned during his tenure. In the fact situation, we need to
simply apply the precedent. Here, Gill is a Governor. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be
launched. Therefore, the only appropriate choice is option c.
Incorrect Answers
• Choice (a) - It is contrary to the precedent provided.
• Choice (b) - It is a piece of information not given in the passage and the question therefore
it can be safely eliminated.
• Choice (d) - This information is external. Thus, deserves to be rejected.

5. b Rationale: The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation
with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of
the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (b)
In the Sarkaria Commission on of the recommendation of the appointment of Governor is that
He should be a person from outside the State. In the fact situation, we need to simply check
whether the appointment of Gill is consistent with the recommendations. Here, Shivraj, a
resident of Mahayan. Therefore, he cannot be appointed as a Governor. Therefore, the only
appropriate choice is option b.
Incorrect Answers
• Choice (a) - It is a piece of information not given in the passage and the question therefore it
can be safely eliminated.
• Choice (c) - Given options is external information not provided anywhere.
• Choice (d) - Given options seems to be logical and attractive. However, it fails on the
ground that no such information is provided concerning the binding value of
recommendations.