Legal Reasoning (CLAT) Questions

- Samarth Udasin
Passage 1
Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 states that coercion is committing or
threatening to commit, any act is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the
unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property, to the prejudice of any person
whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Coercion means forcing an individual to enter into a contract. When intimidation or
threats are used under pressure to gain the party’s consent, i.e. it is not free consent.
Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical and psychological harm in order to
enhance the credibility of a threat. Then the threat of further harm can lead to the
threatened person’s cooperation or obedience.
Coercion has the effect of making the contract voidable. It implies that at the discretion of
the party whose consent was not free, the contract is voidable. The aggravated party will,
therefore, determine whether to enforce the contract or to cancel the contract.
Threatening to commit any act which is prohibited by the Indian penal Code. Detaining
not as per law or even threatening to detain any property, with the sole intention of
compelling a person to enter into a contract.
The word act prohibited by the Indian penal code makes it necessary in a civil action for
the court to decide whether the alleged act of coercion is amount to an offence. A threat of
bringing a false charm with the object of making another do a thing amount to blackmail
or coercion. In the case of Ranganayakamma v Alwar Sett, where the widow was
prohibited from removing the corpse of her husband until she consented for the adoption.
The court said that her consent was not free and it was coerced. It is clear that coercion is
committing or threatening to commit any act which is contrary to law.
Consent can be said to be caused by coercion if it is induced because of illegal confining
of a property, or a danger to do as such. With a specific goal of acknowledging the child’s
due fine, the legislature annexed the property both of him and his father having a place,
the instalment made by the father at that stage bearing in mind the ultimate goal of saving
the property from being sold was kept to be made under coercion. Refusal by the
government to discharge a temporary worker’s instalment unless he surrenders his
demand for additional rates adds up to intimidation under the land detention class.
The burden of proof lies with the party defending the coercion. The burden of proof is
heavier on him. This is because pure probability or fear is not a threat. In order to create
coercion, a person must show that there was a risk that was prohibited by law and that
forced him to enter into a contract that he would not otherwise have.

Q1. A, a wealthy businessman, wanted to buy a plot of land from B, a farmer. A

offered B Rs. 10 lakhs for the land, but B refused to sell it. A then hired some goons
to threaten B and his family with physical harm if he did not agree to sell the land.
B, fearing for his life and safety, agreed to sell the land to A for Rs. 10 lakhs. Later, B
filed a suit to cancel the contract and recover his land from A on the ground of
coercion. Will B succeed in his suit?
A) Yes, because A forced B to enter into the contract by threatening to commit an act that
is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code.
B) No, because B agreed to sell the land for a fair price and did not suffer any loss or
injury due to coercion.
C) No, because B did not prove that A actually committed or intended to commit any act
that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code.
D) Yes, because A unlawfully detained B’s property with the intention of causing him to
enter into the contract.

Answer: A) Yes, because A forced B to enter into the contract by threatening to commit
an act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code.
Reference: Coercion means forcing an individual to enter into a contract by committing
or threatening to commit any act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or by
unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain any property.
Explanation:
A) Yes, because A forced B to enter into the contract by threatening to commit an act that
is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code.
In this scenario, A employed goons to threaten B and his family with physical harm if B
did not agree to sell the land. This threat of physical harm constitutes coercion, as it
involves threatening to commit an act (physical harm) that is forbidden by the Indian
Penal Code. B's consent to the contract was not freely given, as it was obtained under
duress and the threat of violence. Therefore, B is likely to succeed in his suit to cancel the
contract and recover his land due to coercion.
B) No, because B agreed to sell the land for a fair price and did not suffer any loss or
injury due to coercion.
This option is incorrect. Even if B agreed to sell the land for a fair price, the key issue
here is whether B's consent was obtained freely or if it was coerced through threats of
physical harm. If coercion is proven, the fairness of the price becomes irrelevant to the
legality of the contract.
C) No, because B did not prove that A actually committed or intended to commit any act
that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code.
This option is incorrect. It is not necessary for B to prove that A actually committed or
intended to commit the forbidden act. Coercion can also be established if there is a threat
to commit such an act, whether or not it is carried out. In this case, A hired goons to
threaten B, which constitutes a credible threat and is sufficient to establish coercion.
D) Yes, because A unlawfully detained B’s property with the intention of causing him to
enter into the contract.
This option is partially correct. Unlawful detention of property can indeed be a form of
coercion, but in this scenario, the primary form of coercion was the threat of physical
harm, not the unlawful detention of property. Therefore, while this may be a factor
contributing to the coercion, the main element is the threat of physical harm based on A's
actions.

Q2. C, a singer, signed a contract with D, a music company, to record an album

exclusively for D. The contract stipulated that C would receive Rs. 50 lakhs as
advance payment and Rs. 10 lakhs per song as royalty. However, after recording two
songs, C found out that D was cheating him by underreporting the sales and revenue
of his songs. C then decided to terminate the contract and record songs for another
music company, E. D filed a suit against C for breach of contract and claimed
damages. C contended that his consent was not free and that he was induced by
fraud to enter into the contract with D. Will C succeed in his contention?
A) No, because C did not rescind the contract as soon as he discovered the fraud and
continued to perform his obligations under the contract.
B) Yes, because C’s consent was caused by fraud, which is a false representation made
knowingly or without belief in its truth or recklessly without caring whether it is true or
false.
C) No, because C’s consent was not caused by coercion, undue influence,
misrepresentation, or mistake, which are the only grounds for invalidating a contract on
the basis of free consent.
D) Yes, because C’s consent was caused by misrepresentation, which is a false statement
of fact made innocently or negligently without any intention to deceive.

Answer: B) Yes, because C’s consent was caused by fraud, which is a false representation
made knowingly or without belief in its truth or recklessly without caring whether it is
true or false.
Reference: Free consent means that the parties agree upon the same thing in the same
sense and that their consent is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud,
misrepresentation, or mistake.
Explanation:
B) Yes, because C’s consent was caused by fraud, which is a false representation made
knowingly or without belief in its truth or recklessly without caring whether it is true or
false.
Explanation: In this scenario, C discovered that D was cheating him by underreporting
sales and revenue. If C can prove that D knowingly made false representations or
recklessly made them without caring about their truth, this constitutes fraud. Fraud is a
ground for invalidating a contract based on the absence of free consent. C's contention
that his consent was not free due to fraud is valid because fraudulent inducement can
vitiate consent, and C may succeed in his claim.
A) No, because C did not rescind the contract as soon as he discovered the fraud and
continued to perform his obligations under the contract.
Explanation: While it is generally advisable to rescind a contract as soon as fraud is
discovered, failure to do so does not necessarily invalidate the claim of fraud. C may still
be able to prove that his consent was not free due to fraud.
C) No, because C’s consent was not caused by coercion, undue influence,
misrepresentation, or mistake, which are the only grounds for invalidating a contract on
the basis of free consent.
Explanation: This option is incorrect. Fraud is one of the grounds for invalidating a
contract based on the absence of free consent, in addition to coercion, undue influence,
misrepresentation, and mistake.
D) Yes, because C’s consent was caused by misrepresentation, which is a false statement
of fact made innocently or negligently without any intention to deceive.
Explanation: This option is incorrect. The key difference between fraud and
misrepresentation is the intention behind the false statement. Fraud involves a false
statement made knowingly or recklessly, with the intent to deceive, while
misrepresentation involves a false statement made innocently or negligently without the
intent to deceive. In this scenario, C suspected that D was deliberately underreporting
sales and revenue, which aligns more with the concept of fraud rather than
misrepresentation.

Q3. E, a contractor, entered into a contract with F, a government department, to

construct a bridge over a river. The contract specified that E would complete the
work within one year and receive Rs. 100 crores as payment. However, due to some
unforeseen circumstances, E could not finish the work within the stipulated time and
asked for an extension of six months and an additional payment of Rs. 20 crores. F
refused to grant any extension or additional payment and threatened to cancel the
contract and forfeit E’s security deposit if he did not complete the work within one
year. E completed the work within one year under protest and claimed his payment
from F. F paid E only Rs. 80 crores and deducted Rs. 20 crores as penalty for delay.
E filed a suit against F for recovery of Rs. 20 crores on the ground of coercion. Will
E succeed in his suit?
A) No, because E did not complete the work within the agreed time and F had the right to
impose penalty for delay as per the terms of the contract.
B) Yes, because F refused to release E’s payment unless he surrendered his claim for
additional rates which amounted to coercion under the category of unlawful detention of
property.
C) No, because E voluntarily agreed to the terms of the contract and F did not commit or
threaten to commit any act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or unlawfully
detain or threaten to detain any property.
D) Yes, because F coerced E to enter into the contract by threatening to cancel the
contract and forfeit his security deposit which amounted to an act that is forbidden by the
Indian Penal Code.

Answer: B) Yes, because F refused to release E’s payment unless he surrendered his
claim for additional rates which amounted to coercion under the category of unlawful
detention of property.
Reference: Consent can be said to be caused by coercion if it is induced because of
illegal confining of a property, or a danger to do as such. Refusal by the government to
discharge a temporary worker’s instalment unless he surrenders his demand for additional
rates adds up to intimidation under the land detention class.
Explanation :
B) Yes, because F refused to release E’s payment unless he surrendered his claim for
additional rates which amounted to coercion under the category of unlawful detention of
property.
Explanation: In this scenario, F refused to release E's payment unless he surrendered his
claim for additional rates. This refusal amounts to coercion under the category of
unlawful detention of property. E's consent to surrender the claim for additional rates was
not freely given; it was induced by F's refusal to release the payment owed to E. Coercion
can include the unlawful withholding of property to compel a person to enter into an
agreement. Therefore, E is likely to succeed in his suit for the recovery of Rs. 20 crores
on the grounds of coercion.
A) No, because E did not complete the work within the agreed time and F had the right to
impose a penalty for delay as per the terms of the contract.
Explanation: This option is incorrect. While it is true that E did not complete the work
within the agreed time, the issue here is whether F's refusal to release payment unless E
surrendered his claim for additional rates constitutes coercion. Coercion is a separate
legal concept and cannot be justified by contractual penalties alone.
C) No, because E voluntarily agreed to the terms of the contract, and F did not commit or
threaten to commit any act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or unlawfully
detain or threaten to detain any property.
Explanation: This option is incorrect. Coercion can still occur within the context of a
contract if one party uses undue influence or pressure to obtain consent. In this case, F's
refusal to release payment unless E surrendered his claim for additional rates can be seen
as exerting undue pressure and constitutes coercion.
D) Yes, because F coerced E to enter into the contract by threatening to cancel the
contract and forfeit his security deposit, which amounted to an act that is forbidden by the
Indian Penal Code.
Explanation: This option is partially correct, but it does not address the specific issue of
withholding payment for additional rates. While F's threat to cancel the contract and
forfeit the security deposit may contribute to coercion, the primary issue in this case is the
withholding of payment unless E surrenders his claim for additional rates, which falls
under the category of unlawful detention of property.

Q4. G, a minor, wanted to buy a motorcycle from H, a dealer. G lied about his age
and told H that he was 18 years old. H believed G and sold him a motorcycle for Rs.
1 lakh. G paid Rs. 50,000 as advance and promised to pay the remaining amount in
two installments. However, after riding the motorcycle for a few days, G realized
that he did not like it and wanted to return it to H. He also wanted to get back his
advance payment of Rs. 50,000. He told H that he was a minor and that the contract
was void. H refused to take back the motorcycle or refund the money. He also
demanded that G pay the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000 as per the contract. G
filed a suit against H for rescission of contract and recovery of money on the ground
of mistake. Will G succeed in his suit?
A) No, because G’s mistake was not a mistake of fact but a mistake of law, which does
not affect the validity of a contract.
B) Yes, because G’s mistake was a mistake of fact essential to the agreement, which made
his consent not free and the contract void.
C) No, because G’s mistake was a unilateral mistake, which does not affect the validity of
a contract unless it is induced by fraud or misrepresentation.
D) Yes, because G’s mistake was a bilateral mistake, which made the contract void ab
initio and entitled him to rescind it and claim restitution.

Answer: B) Yes, because G’s mistake was a mistake of fact essential to the agreement,
which made his consent not free and the contract void.
Reference: Free consent means that the parties agree upon the same thing in the same
sense and that their consent is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud,
misrepresentation, or mistake.
Explanation:
B) Yes, because G’s mistake was a mistake of fact essential to the agreement, which made
his consent not free and the contract void.
Explanation: In this case, G made a misrepresentation about his age to H, stating that he
was 18 years old when he was, in fact, a minor. This misrepresentation led H to believe
that G had the legal capacity to enter into a contract. However, G's actual age was a fact
essential to the agreement, as the sale of a motorcycle to a minor raises legal issues
regarding contractual capacity. G's mistake about his age was a mistake of fact, not a
mistake of law.
Under the Indian Contract Act, a contract is voidable at the option of the party whose
consent is caused by a mistake of fact, which is essential to the agreement. In this case,
G's consent to the contract was not free, as it was based on a false representation of his
age. Therefore, G has a valid ground to seek rescission of the contract and claim
restitution of the money paid as an advance.
A) No, because G’s mistake was not a mistake of fact but a mistake of law, which does
not affect the validity of a contract.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because G's mistake was about a fact (his age), not a
mistake of law. Mistakes of law generally do not affect the validity of a contract, but
mistakes of fact can.
C) No, because G’s mistake was a unilateral mistake, which does not affect the validity of
a contract unless it is induced by fraud or misrepresentation.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because G's mistake, in this case, was not a
unilateral mistake but rather a mistake that was induced by his own misrepresentation of
his age. It was not induced by fraud or misrepresentation by H.
D) Yes, because G’s mistake was a bilateral mistake, which made the contract void ab
initio and entitled him to rescind it and claim restitution.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because G's mistake was not a bilateral mistake. A
bilateral mistake occurs when both parties to the contract are mistaken about a
fundamental aspect of the contract. In this case, it was G who made the mistake about his
age, while H believed G's representation to be true. Therefore, it's not a case of bilateral
mistake.

Q5. I, a landlord, rented out his house to J, a tenant, for a period of one year. The
rent was fixed at Rs. 10,000 per month and J paid Rs. 50,000 as security deposit.
After six months, I wanted to increase the rent to Rs. 15,000 per month and asked J
to agree to the new terms or vacate the house. J refused to do either and claimed that
he had a valid contract with I for one year at Rs. 10,000 per month. I then cut off the
water and electricity supply to J’s house and locked the main gate from outside. J
filed a suit against I for injunction and damages on the ground of coercion. Will J
succeed in his suit?
A) No, because I had the right to increase the rent as per the market rate and J had no
option but to agree or vacate.
B) Yes, because I unlawfully detained J’s property with the intention of causing him to
enter into an agreement.
C) No, because I did not commit or threaten to commit any act that is forbidden by the
Indian Penal Code or detain or threaten to detain any property belonging to J.
D) Yes, because I committed an act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code by cutting
off the water and electricity supply and locking the main gate from outside.

Answer: D) Yes, because I committed an act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code
by cutting off the water and electricity supply and locking the main gate from outside.
Reference: Coercion means forcing an individual to enter into a contract by committing
or threatening to commit any act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or by
unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain any property.
Explanation:
D) Yes, because I committed an act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code by cutting
off the water and electricity supply and locking the main gate from outside.
Explanation: In this scenario, I, the landlord, resorted to actions such as cutting off water
and electricity supply and locking the main gate from outside to coerce J, the tenant, into
agreeing to the new rent terms. These actions are in violation of the Indian Penal Code, as
they can be seen as unlawful acts intended to compel J to accept the new rental terms.
Such actions constitute coercion, as they involve the commission of acts forbidden by the
law to force someone into an agreement. Therefore, J is likely to succeed in his suit for
injunction and damages based on the ground of coercion.
A) No, because I had the right to increase the rent as per the market rate and J had no
option but to agree or vacate.
Explanation: This option is incorrect. While a landlord may have the right to increase
rent, it must be done following legal procedures and within the terms of the existing lease
agreement. Arbitrarily increasing the rent during the lease period without proper notice
and agreement from the tenant can still be considered coercion if it involves unlawful
actions.
B) Yes, because I unlawfully detained J’s property with the intention of causing him to
enter into an agreement.
Explanation: This option is partially correct in that unlawful detention of property can be
a form of coercion. However, in this case, the primary form of coercion was the cutting
off of utilities and locking the gate, which directly interfered with J's living conditions.
The unlawful detention of property is not the primary issue.
C) No, because I did not commit or threaten to commit any act that is forbidden by the
Indian Penal Code or detain or threaten to detain any property belonging to J.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because, in this scenario, I did commit an act that is
forbidden by the Indian Penal Code by cutting off utilities and locking the gate, which can
be seen as a form of coercion. Additionally, coercion can be established even without the
need to detain or threaten to detain property if other forms of coercion, such as threats or
illegal acts, are present.
Passage 2
Juvenile, as defined in sub-section 35 of Section 2 of the Act, is a person who is under 18
years of age. A child who is in conflict of law within the meaning of Section 2(13) shall
be subject to an inquiry or preliminary assessment (only for heinous offences) in
accordance with the provisions of this Act. In a literal sense, a preliminary assessment is
an informal way of conducting an investigation in which two things are determined.
Firstly, whether to proceed with it or not; and secondly, if yes, then how to proceed.
Section 15 of the Act mandates preliminary assessment of juveniles in conflict with the
law subject to the following conditions-
Juveniles of the age above 16 years and below 18 years;
Commission of heinous offence as given under Section 2(33) of the Act.
The Juvenile Justice Board conducts a preliminary assessment to determine if the
conditions mentioned above are fulfilled. A determination of the physical and mental
ability of a juvenile to commit the crime is made. Based on the result of such a
preliminary assessment, the Board passes a reasonable order as to whether a juvenile can
be tried as an adult in the Court of Law.
Assessment by the Board can also be considered one of the kinds of inquiry under Section
14 of the Act, which provides for the procedure of inquiry of the Board regarding a child
in conflict with the law. Further, Section 14(5) of the Act states that the Board must
ensure a fair and speedy inquiry. It also provides that an inquiry into the heinous offences
committed by children in the 16-18 age group shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed
under Section 15.
Rule 10A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016
enumerates the procedure for conducting a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of
the Act. It states that for the purpose of carrying a preliminary assessment of juveniles
committing heinous offences, if necessary, Board may take the help of the following
persons-
Psychologist;
Psycho-social workers; or
Any other expert person who has experience working with children in difficult
circumstances.
In addition, the proviso of Section 15(1) of the Act also states that the Board is free to
seek the assistance of an experienced psychologist, psycho-social worker, or any other
expert in the field. The District Child Protection Unit Hall has to look after the
availability of the experts stated above. The board may consult these experts on any
question of the psyche, or they may even ask for an independent assessment of the
juvenile by these experts.
In the case of Olef Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the High Court considered
the question of whether the word “may”, used in reference to the assistance of
psychologists during a preliminary assessment, should be construed as “shall,” i.e., a
mandatory pre-condition. The court has held that “when the word ‘may’ is used in an
enactment in respect of a Court, the same has to be understood as ‘shall’.” The point of
construing the word “may” as “shall” was well validated by the Supreme Court back in
1963 in the case of Ramji Missir vs. State of Bihar.

Q1. K, a 17-year-old boy, was accused of raping and murdering L, a 16-year-old girl,
in a secluded place. The police arrested K and produced him before the Board for
preliminary assessment. The Board decided to conduct a preliminary assessment
without seeking the assistance of any experts and concluded that K had the physical
and mental capacity to commit the heinous offence and transferred him to the
Children’s Court for trial as an adult. K challenged the order of the Board on the
ground that it was passed without following the proper procedure. Will K succeed in
his challenge?
A) No, because the Board had the discretion to conduct a preliminary assessment without
seeking the assistance of any experts and K did not prove that he lacked the physical and
mental capacity to commit the heinous offence.
B) Yes, because the Board was bound to seek the assistance of experts while conducting a
preliminary assessment of juveniles committing heinous offences and K was deprived of
his right to a fair and speedy inquiry.
C) No, because the Board followed the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act
and Rule 10A of the Model Rules and K did not raise any objection at the time of
preliminary assessment.
D) Yes, because the Board violated the principle of natural justice by conducting a
preliminary assessment without giving K an opportunity to be heard or represented by a
lawyer.
Answer: B) Yes, because the Board was bound to seek the assistance of experts while
conducting a preliminary assessment of juveniles committing heinous offences and K was
deprived of his right to a fair and speedy inquiry.
Reference: Assistance of experts is optional but desirable for the Board to conduct a
preliminary assessment of juveniles committing heinous offences. The word “may” used
in reference to the assistance of experts should be construed as “shall”, i.e., a mandatory
pre-condition.
Explanation:
B) Yes, because the Board was bound to seek the assistance of experts while conducting a
preliminary assessment of juveniles committing heinous offences and K was deprived of
his right to a fair and speedy inquiry.
Explanation: In this case, the Board conducted a preliminary assessment of K, a juvenile
accused of a heinous offence, without seeking the assistance of experts. As per the
provisions of Section 15 of the Act, Rule 10A of the Model Rules, and the legal
interpretation established in the Olef Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case, when it
comes to assessing juveniles accused of heinous offences, the use of the word "may"
should be understood as "shall," making it mandatory for the Board to seek the assistance
of experts.
K's challenge is likely to succeed because the Board did not follow the proper procedure
mandated by law. The failure to seek expert assistance deprived K of his right to a fair
and speedy inquiry, as guaranteed under Section 14(5) of the Act. The absence of expert
input could potentially impact the accuracy of the assessment regarding K's physical and
mental capacity to commit the heinous offence. Therefore, K's challenge is valid on these
grounds.
A) No, because the Board had the discretion to conduct a preliminary assessment without
seeking the assistance of any experts and K did not prove that he lacked the physical and
mental capacity to commit the heinous offence.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because, as established in the Olef Khan case and in
accordance with the Act and Model Rules, the use of the word "may" implies a mandatory
requirement to seek expert assistance in the preliminary assessment of juveniles accused
of heinous offences. The discretionary power of the Board is limited in this context.
C) No, because the Board followed the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act
and Rule 10A of the Model Rules and K did not raise any objection at the time of
preliminary assessment.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because the failure to seek expert assistance in a
preliminary assessment of juveniles accused of heinous offences goes against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and Model Rules. Even if K did not raise an objection at
the time, it does not absolve the Board from following the prescribed procedure.
D) Yes, because the Board violated the principle of natural justice by conducting a
preliminary assessment without giving K an opportunity to be heard or represented by a
lawyer.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because the question of K's representation or being
heard is not the primary issue in this scenario. The main issue is the failure of the Board
to seek expert assistance, which is a procedural requirement, and this forms the basis of
K's challenge. While the right to be heard is important, it is not the central point of
contention in this case.

Q2. M, a 16-year-old girl, was arrested for smuggling drugs across the border. The
police recovered 10 kg of heroin from her possession and booked her under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Board conducted a
preliminary assessment of M with the assistance of experts and found that she had
the physical and mental capacity to commit the heinous offence. The Board
transferred her to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult. M pleaded guilty before
the Children’s Court and was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. M
appealed against the sentence on the ground that it was harsh and disproportionate.
Will M succeed in her appeal?
A) No, because M pleaded guilty before the Children’s Court and accepted her
responsibility for committing the heinous offence.
B) Yes, because M was a juvenile in conflict with the law and deserved a chance for
rehabilitation and reformation rather than punishment.
C) No, because M committed a heinous offence for which the minimum punishment
under the law was imprisonment for seven years or more. D) Yes, because M was tried as
an adult without considering her individual circumstances and social background.
Answer: B) Yes, because M was a juvenile in conflict with the law and deserved a chance
for rehabilitation and reformation rather than punishment.
Reference: In cases of preliminary assessment, the remedy available to the juvenile is to
challenge the order of the Board transferring him to the Children’s Court or to appeal
against the order of conviction or sentence passed by the Children’s Court.
Explanation:
B) Yes, because M was a juvenile in conflict with the law and deserved a chance for
rehabilitation and reformation rather than punishment.
Explanation: In this case, M was a 16-year-old girl who committed a heinous offence
related to drug smuggling. While she pleaded guilty before the Children's Court and
accepted responsibility for her actions, the key issue is that she was a juvenile at the time
of the offence.
Juvenile justice systems, including the one in this scenario, are designed to provide
special protections and considerations for minors who come into conflict with the law.
The objective is not solely punitive but also focuses on rehabilitation and reformation.
Therefore, even if M pleaded guilty, it is essential to take into account her age,
developmental stage, and the potential for rehabilitation.
M may succeed in her appeal on the grounds that her sentence was harsh and
disproportionate for a juvenile. The principle of juvenile justice involves providing
juveniles with opportunities for reform and reintegration into society rather than
subjecting them to adult-like punishment.
A) No, because M pleaded guilty before the Children’s Court and accepted her
responsibility for committing the heinous offence.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because while M pleaded guilty, the focus should
still be on whether her sentence was appropriate given her status as a juvenile. Pleading
guilty does not negate the need to consider the principles of juvenile justice and the
potential for rehabilitation.
C) No, because M committed a heinous offence for which the minimum punishment
under the law was imprisonment for seven years or more.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because it focuses solely on the severity of the
offence and the minimum punishment prescribed by law. While the nature of the offence
is a relevant factor, the juvenile justice system is designed to take into account the unique
circumstances of juvenile offenders and provide them with opportunities for
rehabilitation.
D) Yes, because M was tried as an adult without considering her individual circumstances
and social background.
Explanation: This option is partially correct in highlighting the issue of M being tried as
an adult, but the primary concern in this case is not her trial as an adult but rather the
appropriateness of her sentence as a juvenile. The appeal should primarily focus on
whether the sentence was in line with the principles of juvenile justice and the potential
for rehabilitation.

Q3. N, a 17-year-old boy, was involved in a gang war and stabbed O, a rival gang
member, with a knife. O died on the spot due to excessive bleeding. The police
arrested N and produced him before the Board for preliminary assessment. The
Board sought the assistance of experts and conducted a psychological test on N. The
test revealed that N had low IQ, poor impulse control, and antisocial personality
disorder. The Board concluded that N did not have the physical and mental capacity
to commit the heinous offence and decided not to transfer him to the Children’s
Court for trial as an adult. O’s family challenged the order of the Board on the
ground that it was based on unreliable evidence. Will O’s family succeed in their
challenge?

A) No, because the Board followed the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act
and Rule 10A of the Model Rules and sought the assistance of experts while conducting a
preliminary assessment of N.
B) Yes, because the psychological test conducted on N was not conclusive or objective
and did not reflect his actual physical and mental capacity to commit the heinous offence.
C) No, because the Board had the authority and expertise to determine the physical and
mental capacity of N and the burden of proof was on O’s family to prove otherwise.
D) Yes, because the Board ignored the gravity and nature of the heinous offence
committed by N and gave undue weightage to his psychological condition.

Answer: B) Yes, because the psychological test conducted on N was not conclusive or
objective and did not reflect his actual physical and mental capacity to commit the
heinous offence.
Reference: A determination of the physical and mental ability of a juvenile to commit the
crime is made. Based on the result of such a preliminary assessment, the Board passes a
reasonable order as to whether a juvenile can be tried as an adult in the Court of Law.
Explanation:
B) Yes, because the psychological test conducted on N was not conclusive or objective
and did not reflect his actual physical and mental capacity to commit the heinous offence.
Explanation: In this case, the Board conducted a psychological test on N, which revealed
that he had low IQ, poor impulse control, and antisocial personality disorder. However,
the reliability and objectivity of the psychological test are critical factors. Psychological
tests may provide valuable insights into a person's mental state, but they are not always
conclusive or definitive in assessing an individual's capacity to commit a heinous offence.

O's family's challenge is likely to succeed because the psychological test may not provide
a comprehensive assessment of N's physical and mental capacity to commit the offence. It
is important to consider other relevant factors, such as the nature of the crime, eyewitness
accounts, and any other available evidence. Relying solely on a psychological test without
considering other aspects of the case may not be sufficient to make an informed decision
regarding N's capacity.

A) No, because the Board followed the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act
and Rule 10A of the Model Rules and sought the assistance of experts while conducting a
preliminary assessment of N.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because the challenge is not about whether the
Board followed the procedure or sought the assistance of experts. Instead, the challenge
revolves around the reliability and conclusiveness of the psychological test conducted on
N.

C) No, because the Board had the authority and expertise to determine the physical and
mental capacity of N, and the burden of proof was on O’s family to prove otherwise.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because while the Board has the authority to make
determinations about a juvenile's physical and mental capacity, it is also important that the
assessment is based on reliable and objective evidence. The burden of proof may lie on
the party challenging the assessment, but if there are valid reasons to question the
reliability of the assessment, those concerns should be considered.

D) Yes, because the Board ignored the gravity and nature of the heinous offence
committed by N and gave undue weightage to his psychological condition.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because it makes an assumption about the Board's
decision without clear evidence to support it. The primary issue in this scenario is the
reliability of the psychological test, not the Board's consideration of the offence's gravity
or N's psychological condition.
Q4. P, a 16-year-old boy, was accused of kidnapping and murdering Q, a 10-year-old
boy, for ransom. The police arrested P and produced him before the Board for
preliminary assessment. The Board did not seek the assistance of any experts and
conducted a preliminary assessment based on the police report and the statements of
the witnesses. The Board found that P had the physical and mental capacity to
commit the heinous offence and transferred him to the Children’s Court for trial as
an adult. P challenged the order of the Board on the ground that it was passed
without conducting a proper inquiry. Will P succeed in his challenge?
A) No, because the Board conducted a preliminary assessment based on the available
evidence and P did not show any reason to doubt the credibility of the police report and
the witnesses.
B) Yes, because the Board did not conduct a proper inquiry as per Section 14 of the Act
and did not ensure a fair and speedy inquiry as per Section 14(5) of the Act.
C) No, because the Board conducted a preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the
Act and Rule 10A of the Model Rules and did not need to seek the assistance of any
experts.
D) Yes, because the Board did not conduct a preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of
the Act and Rule 10A of the Model Rules and did not seek the assistance of any experts.

Answer: B) Yes, because the Board did not conduct a proper inquiry as per Section 14 of
the Act and did not ensure a fair and speedy inquiry as per Section 14(5) of the Act.
Reference: Assessment by the Board can also be considered one of the kinds of inquiry
under Section 14 of the Act, which provides for the procedure of inquiry of the Board
regarding a child in conflict with the law. Further, Section 14(5) of the Act states that the
Board must ensure a fair and speedy inquiry.
Explanation:
B) Yes, because the Board did not conduct a proper inquiry as per Section 14 of the Act
and did not ensure a fair and speedy inquiry as per Section 14(5) of the Act.
Explanation: In this case, P, a juvenile accused of a heinous offence, was subjected to a
preliminary assessment by the Board without the involvement of any experts. While
Section 15 of the Act permits such assessments, it is essential to consider that the
preliminary assessment itself falls under the broader category of inquiry as defined in
Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 outlines the procedure for inquiries of the Board
regarding children in conflict with the law. Furthermore, Section 14(5) of the Act
mandates that the Board must ensure a fair and speedy inquiry.

P's challenge is likely to succeed because the Board did not conduct a proper inquiry as
per Section 14 of the Act. The Act does not distinguish between preliminary assessments
and other forms of inquiry in terms of the procedural requirements. Failure to seek expert
assistance, especially in cases involving heinous offences committed by juveniles, can be
seen as a deficiency in conducting a proper inquiry as it may affect the accuracy of the
assessment regarding P's physical and mental capacity. Therefore, P's challenge is valid
on these grounds.

A) No, because the Board conducted a preliminary assessment based on the available
evidence and P did not show any reason to doubt the credibility of the police report and
the witnesses.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because the primary issue here is not the credibility
of the evidence or witnesses. Instead, it is about the procedural requirement of conducting
a proper inquiry, which includes seeking expert assistance when assessing juveniles
accused of heinous offences.

C) No, because the Board conducted a preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the
Act and Rule 10A of the Model Rules and did not need to seek the assistance of any
experts.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because it does not address the fact that the Act,
specifically Section 14, outlines the broader procedure for inquiry, and Section 14(5)
emphasizes the need for a fair and speedy inquiry. While Section 15 permits preliminary
assessments, it does not negate the requirements of Section 14 or Section 14(5).

D) Yes, because the Board did not conduct a preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of
the Act and Rule 10A of the Model Rules and did not seek the assistance of any experts.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because the Board did conduct a preliminary
assessment, as mentioned in the scenario. However, the issue is not about whether the
assessment was conducted but whether it was conducted properly in accordance with the
Act's procedural requirements.

Q5. Ravi, a 17-year-old boy, was accused of murdering his classmate Rohan in a fit
of rage. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment of Ravi and
found that he had a history of violent behaviour and mental instability. The Board
also consulted a psychologist, who opined that Ravi had a low level of remorse and
empathy and a high risk of recidivism. Based on these findings, the Board decided to
try Ravi as an adult in the Court of Law. Ravi challenged this decision before the
High Court, contending that the Board did not seek the assistance of a psycho-social
worker or any other expert person who had experience working with children in
difficult circumstances, as required by Rule 10A of the Model Rules. Will Ravi
succeed in his challenge?
A) Yes, because the Board did not follow the mandatory procedure of seeking the
assistance of a psycho-social worker or any other expert person who had experience
working with children in difficult circumstances, as per Rule 10A of the Model Rules.
B) No, because the Board had the discretion to seek the assistance of any expert person
who had experience working with children in difficult circumstances, and it did so by
consulting a psychologist, as per the proviso of Section 15(1) of the Act.
C) No, because the word “may” used in Rule 10A of the Model Rules implies that
seeking the assistance of a psycho-social worker or any other expert person who had
experience working with children in difficult circumstances is not a mandatory pre-
condition for conducting a preliminary assessment, as per the literal interpretation of the
rule.
D) Yes, because the word “may” used in Rule 10A of the Model Rules should be
construed as “shall” in respect of seeking the assistance of experts during a preliminary
assessment, as per the case law of Olef Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) and
Ramji Missir vs. State of Bihar (1963).
Answer: D) Yes, because the word “may” used in Rule 10A of the Model Rules should be
construed as “shall” in respect of seeking the assistance of experts during a preliminary
assessment, as per the case law of Olef Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) and
Ramji Missir vs. State of Bihar (1963).
Reference: The court has held that “when the word ‘may’ is used in an enactment in
respect of a Court, the same has to be understood as ‘shall’.”
Explanation:
D) Yes, because the word “may” used in Rule 10A of the Model Rules should be
construed as “shall” in respect of seeking the assistance of experts during a preliminary
assessment, as per the case law of Olef Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) and
Ramji Missir vs. State of Bihar (1963).
Explanation: The key issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the word
"may" in Rule 10A of the Model Rules, which enumerates the procedure for conducting a
preliminary assessment of juveniles committing heinous offences. The case law of Olef
Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) and Ramji Missir vs. State of Bihar (1963)
established that when the word "may" is used in an enactment in respect of a Court, it
should be understood as "shall," making it a mandatory requirement.

In this context, Rule 10A states that the Board "may" seek the assistance of a psycho-
social worker or any other expert person who has experience working with children in
difficult circumstances for the purpose of conducting a preliminary assessment. Given the
legal interpretation provided by the mentioned cases, the word "may" should be construed
as "shall" when it comes to seeking expert assistance. Therefore, the failure of the Board
to seek such assistance in Ravi's case constitutes a violation of the mandatory procedure
outlined in Rule 10A.

A) Yes, because the Board did not follow the mandatory procedure of seeking the
assistance of a psycho-social worker or any other expert person who had experience
working with children in difficult circumstances, as per Rule 10A of the Model Rules.
Explanation: This option is correct and aligns with the main argument presented in Ravi's
challenge. The failure of the Board to seek the assistance of a psycho-social worker or
any other expert person with experience working with children in difficult circumstances,
as required by Rule 10A of the Model Rules, constitutes a violation of the mandatory
procedure. This violation provides a valid basis for Ravi's challenge.

B) No, because the Board had the discretion to seek the assistance of any expert person
who had experience working with children in difficult circumstances, and it did so by
consulting a psychologist, as per the proviso of Section 15(1) of the Act.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because while the Board may have discretion, the
key issue here is the interpretation of the word "may" in Rule 10A of the Model Rules.
The case law cited suggests that in this context, "may" should be understood as "shall,"
making it a mandatory requirement to seek expert assistance. Consulting a psychologist
alone may not satisfy this requirement if the rule mandates the involvement of multiple
experts.

C) No, because the word “may” used in Rule 10A of the Model Rules implies that
seeking the assistance of a psycho-social worker or any other expert person who had
experience working with children in difficult circumstances is not a mandatory pre-
condition for conducting a preliminary assessment, as per the literal interpretation of the
rule.
Explanation: This option is incorrect because it relies on a literal interpretation of the
word "may," whereas the case law cited in the question establishes a different legal
interpretation. As per the case law, in this context, "may" should be understood as "shall,"
making the seeking of expert assistance a mandatory requirement for a preliminary
assessment.