Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2026, Solved Passages with Answers

Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2026: Legal Reasoning is an important section in the upcoming CLAT 2026 exam. As per the CLAT syllabus 2026, candidates do not need to have prior knowledge of legal concepts and terminology. The Legal Reasoning questions for CLAT 2026 are structured to test your general legal understanding and problem-solving skills. You will be with the legal principle in the form of passages and a set of facts to which the principle has to be applied. You have to read the passages carefully and deduce what legal information is provided and answer the follow-up questions.

Checkout Law Books from PW Store

LAW Online Coaching

CLAT 2026 Legal Reasoning Section Overview

The Legal Reasoning section of CLAT 2026 accounts for about 25% of the exam, with approximately 28–32 questions based on 4–6 passages. Each passage is based on legal scenarios, current or static legal issues, or hypothetical situations, followed by a set of questions. The questions evaluate candidates’ ability to understand, analyze, and apply legal principles or rules to given facts. While prior legal knowledge is not mandatory, familiarity with basic legal concepts, recent judgments, and contemporary legal developments can help you maximize your scores. The section assesses your reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. 

Types of Questions Asked in CLAT 2026 Legal Reasoning Section

The following are some common types of questions that are asked in the CLAT Legal Reasoning section. 

• Passage-based questions: These include passages of around 450 words on legal scenario, current legal issue, or hypothetical situation, followed by multiple questions.
• Principle-fact questions: Candidates will be given a legal principle and a factual situation. You will be required to apply the principle to the facts and determine the correct outcome. 
• Application of legal rules: Such questions will require candidates to apply the provided legal rules or principles to new or modified fact situations to test their reasoning and adaptability. 
• Identification of legal concepts: Some questions ask you to recognize relevant legal provisions, maxims, or landmark judgments based on the passage. 
• Topics covered: Common topics include Contract Law, Criminal Law, Torts, Constitutional Law, Family Law, and International Law. 

Some Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2026

The following are some legal reasoning questions for CLAT 2026. Candidates can review these questions and prepare accordingly. 

Legal Reasoning Questions with Answers for CLAT Passage 1

In 2025, the Indian Parliament enacted the “Right to Safe Digital Spaces Act” (RSDSA), aiming to protect individuals from online harassment and abuse. The Act defines “online harassment” as any repeated or severe conduct using electronic communication that intentionally causes substantial emotional distress to another person. The RSDSA mandates that all digital platforms operating in India must provide users with mechanisms to report harassment and are required to act within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. The Act also imposes a duty on platforms to remove or block content found to be harassing after a preliminary review.

Section 7 of the RSDSA states: “No person shall, utilizing electronic communication, repeatedly send messages, images, or videos that are threatening, abusive, or intended to cause substantial emotional distress to another person.” Section 9 provides that platforms failing to act on valid complaints within the stipulated time may be penalized by regulatory authorities.

In a recent incident, Ms. R, a journalist, began receiving threatening and abusive messages on a popular social media platform after publishing an article on a controversial topic. Despite reporting the messages, the platform failed to take any action for five days. The messages continued, causing Ms. R significant emotional distress. She then filed a complaint with the regulatory authorities, alleging violation of her rights under the RSDSA.

Meanwhile, the platform argued that it receives thousands of complaints daily and that delays are sometimes unavoidable. It also claimed that some of the reported messages were not “severe” enough to warrant removal, as per their internal guidelines. The regulatory authority must now decide whether the platform’s actions (or inactions) constitute a breach of the RSDSA and what remedies, if any, are available to Ms. R.

Question 1. According to the RSDSA, what constitutes “online harassment”?

A. Any message sent online that is critical of another person
B. Repeated or severe electronic communication that intentionally causes substantial emotional distress
C. Any negative comment made on a public post
D. Sharing news articles without permission

Answer:
B. Repeated or severe electronic communication that intentionally causes substantial emotional distress.

Question 2. What is the obligation of digital platforms under the RSDSA when a complaint of online harassment is received?

A. To block the user immediately without review
B. To act on the complaint within 24 hours and remove or block content after a preliminary review
C. To ignore complaints unless they are from verified users
D. To forward complaints to the police only

Answer:
B. To act on the complaint within 24 hours and remove or block content after a preliminary review. 

Question 3. Did the social media platform violate the RSDSA in Ms. R’s case?

A. No, because it receives too many complaints
B. Yes, because it failed to act within 24 hours of receiving the complaint
C. No, because the messages were not “severe” according to its guidelines
D. Yes, because Ms. R is a journalist

Answer:
B. Yes, because it failed to act within 24 hours of receiving the complaint.

Question 4. Can the platform’s internal guidelines override the obligations set by the RSDSA?

A. Yes, platforms can set their standards
B. No, statutory obligations under the RSDSA take precedence over internal guidelines
C. Yes, if approved by users
D. Only if the guidelines are stricter than the Act

Answer:
B. No, statutory obligations under the RSDSA take precedence over internal guidelines.

Question 5. What remedy is available to Ms. R under the RSDSA for the platform’s failure to act?

A. She can only deactivate her account
B. She can file a complaint with the regulatory authority, which may penalize the platform
C. She must wait for the platform to respond
D. She can only sue the individual harassers

Answer:
B. She can file a complaint with the regulatory authority, which may penalize the platform.

Legal Reasoning Questions with Answers for CLAT Passage 2

In 2024, the Parliament of India passed the “Data Privacy and Protection Act” (DPPA) to safeguard individuals’ data in the digital age. The Act defines “personal data” as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, including names, addresses, contact details, and online identifiers. Section 5 of the DPPA states: “No organization shall collect, store, or process personal data without obtaining the explicit and informed consent of the individual concerned, except as required by law.” Section 8 further mandates that individuals have the right to request deletion of their data held by any organization, unless retention is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation.

In a recent incident, TechNow, a leading e-commerce platform, collected and stored the personal data of its users, including their browsing history and purchase patterns, without providing a clear consent form. When Ms. B, a regular customer, learned about this practice, she requested that TechNow delete all her data from their servers. TechNow refused, stating that the data was necessary for “business analytics” and “improving user experience.” Ms. B then filed a complaint with the Data Protection Authority, alleging a violation of her rights under the DPPA.

TechNow argued that its privacy policy, published on its website, mentioned data collection practices, and that continued use of the platform constituted implied consent. The Data Protection Authority must now decide whether TechNow’s actions complied with the DPPA and what remedies, if any, are available to Ms. B.

Question 1. According to Section 5 of the DPPA, when can an organization collect and store personal data?

A. Whenever it is necessary for business analytics
B. Only after obtaining explicit and informed consent from the individual
C. If the organization publishes a privacy policy
D. Whenever the user continues to use the platform

Answer:
B. Only after obtaining explicit and informed consent from the individual.

Question 2. Was TechNow’s practice of collecting data without a clear consent form compliant with the DPPA?

A. Yes, because their privacy policy mentioned data collection
B. No, because they did not obtain explicit and informed consent
C. Yes, because users kept using the platform
D. No, because business analytics is not a valid reason

Answer:
B. No, because they did not obtain explicit and informed consent.

Question 3. Does continued use of a platform constitute “explicit and informed consent” under the DPPA?

A. Yes, always
B. No, explicit and informed consent requires a clear, affirmative action by the user
C. Yes, if the privacy policy is published
D. Only if the user is notified by email

Answer:
B. No, explicit and informed consent requires a clear, affirmative action by the user.

Question 4. What right does Section 8 of the DPPA grant to individuals regarding their data?

A. The right to sell their data
B. The right to request deletion of their data, unless retention is legally required
C. The right to transfer data to another country
D. The right to access business analytics

Answer:
B. The right to request deletion of their data, unless retention is legally required.

Question 5. What remedy is available to Ms. B if TechNow refuses to delete her data without a valid legal reason?

A. She can only stop using the platform
B. She can file a complaint with the Data Protection Authority, which may direct TechNow to comply and impose penalties
C. She must accept the company’s decision
D. She can request compensation from other users

Answer:
B. She can file a complaint with the Data Protection Authority, which may direct TechNow to comply and impose penalties.

Legal Reasoning Questions with Answers for CLAT Passage 3

In 2024, the Indian Parliament enacted the “Clean Air and Public Health Act” (CAPHA) to address the growing problem of air pollution in urban areas. Section 10 of CAPHA states: “No factory or commercial establishment shall emit pollutants into the air beyond the permissible limits specified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).” Section 12 empowers the State Pollution Control Boards to inspect, monitor, and, if necessary, order the temporary closure of any establishment violating these limits. Section 15 provides that “any person or organization found violating the permissible limits shall be liable to pay compensation to affected residents and may face additional penalties, including closure orders.”

In January 2025, the residents of Greenview Colony, a densely populated residential area, started experiencing increased respiratory problems. They suspected that the nearby MegaCure Pharmaceuticals factory was emitting harmful gases at night. Several residents filed complaints with the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB). Upon inspection, the SPCB found that the factory’s emissions exceeded the permissible limits set by the CPCB on multiple occasions. The SPCB ordered the immediate closure of the factory for 30 days and directed MegaCure to pay compensation to the affected residents.

MegaCure challenged the order, arguing that occasional excess emissions were due to unforeseen technical glitches and that an immediate closure would result in significant economic loss and unemployment. The company also claimed it was taking steps to upgrade its pollution control systems. The residents, however, argued that their health and right to a clean environment were being compromised and that the law required strict enforcement to prevent future violations.

The matter is now before the High Court, which must decide whether the SPCB’s actions were justified under CAPHA and what balance should be struck between public health, environmental protection, and economic interests.

Question 1. Under CAPHA, what is the primary obligation of factories regarding air pollution?

A. To minimize emissions as much as possible
B. To emit pollutants only during non-working hours
C. Not to emit pollutants beyond the permissible limits specified by the CPCB
D. To pay compensation if residents complain

Answer:
C. Not to emit pollutants beyond the permissible limits specified by the CPCB.

Question 2. Was the SPCB justified in ordering the immediate closure of MegaCure Pharmaceuticals for exceeding emission limits?

A. Yes, because Section 12 empowers the SPCB to order closure for violations
B. No, because the company was upgrading its systems
C. Yes, but only after giving the company a warning
D. No, unless there is a court order

Answer:
A. Yes, because Section 12 empowers the SPCB to order closure for violations.

Question 3. Does the law require MegaCure to pay compensation to affected residents?

A. No, unless the company is found guilty in a criminal court
B. Yes, Section 15 provides for compensation to affected residents for violations
C. Only if the residents prove permanent health damage
D. Only after the factory is permanently closed

Answer:
B. Yes, Section 15 provides for compensation to affected residents for violations.

Question 4. Can MegaCure’s argument about economic loss override the residents’ right to a clean environment under CAPHA?

A. Yes, economic interests always take precedence
B. No, public health and environmental protection are prioritized under the Act
C. Yes, if the company promises future compliance
D. Only if the government approves

Answer:
B. No, public health and environmental protection are prioritized under the Act.

Question 5. What principle should the High Court apply in resolving the dispute between MegaCure and the residents?

A. Whether the SPCB followed due process and applied CAPHA’s provisions fairly, balancing public health with economic considerations
B. Whether the company’s profits are maximized
C. Whether the residents can relocate
D. Whether the factory is the only employer in the area

Answer:
A. Whether the SPCB followed due process and applied CAPHA’s provisions fairly, balancing public health with economic considerations.

Legal Reasoning Questions with Answers for CLAT Passage 4

In 2025, the city of Rivertown faced a severe water shortage due to a prolonged drought. To address the crisis, the State Government enacted the “Essential Water Management Act” (EWMA). Section 7 of the EWMA states: “No individual, household, or commercial entity shall use potable water for non-essential purposes, including but not limited to washing vehicles, watering gardens, or filling swimming pools, during a declared water emergency.” Section 10 empowers the Water Regulation Authority (WRA) to inspect premises and impose penalties or temporarily disconnect the water supply for violations.

During the emergency, Mr. S, who owns a popular car wash business, continued to use large quantities of potable water to wash vehicles, arguing that his business was his sole source of income and that he had already paid for the water supply. Several residents complained to the WRA, stating that Mr. S’s actions were worsening the crisis and depriving others of essential water. Upon inspection, the WRA found Mr. S in violation of Section 7 and ordered the immediate suspension of his water connection for two weeks, along with a monetary penalty.

Mr. S challenged the order in court, claiming that the Act infringed on his right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The State defended the law, arguing that reasonable restrictions can be placed on business activities in the interest of public health and safety, especially during emergencies. The residents, meanwhile, emphasized their fundamental right to access water for essential needs.

The court is now tasked with determining whether the WRA’s actions and the provisions of the EWMA are constitutionally valid and whether Mr. S’s rights have been violated.

Question 1. According to Section 7 of the EWMA, what activities are prohibited during a declared water emergency?

A. All commercial activities
B. Use of potable water for non-essential purposes such as washing vehicles, watering gardens, or filling pools
C. Drinking water at home
D. Using water for cooking

Answer:
B. Use of potable water for non-essential purposes such as washing vehicles, watering gardens, or filling pools.

Question 2. Was the WRA justified in suspending Mr. S’s water connection and imposing a penalty?

A. Yes, because Section 10 authorizes such action for violations
B. No, because Mr. S paid for the water
C. Yes, but only after multiple warnings
D. No, unless a court order is obtained

Answer:
A. Yes, because Section 10 authorizes such action for violations.

Question 3. Can Mr. S claim an absolute right to carry on his car wash business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?

A. Yes, business rights cannot be restricted
B. No, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public health and safety
C. Yes, if he pays for the water
D. Only if his business is registered

Answer:
B. No, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public health and safety.

Question 4. Do the residents have a stronger claim to water for essential needs compared to Mr. S’s business use during an emergency?

A. No, business use is equally important
B. Yes, access to water for essential needs takes priority during emergencies
C. No, because Mr. S creates employment
D. Only if the residents pay more for water

Answer:
B. Yes, access to water for essential needs takes priority during emergencies.

Question 5. What principle should the court apply in deciding the validity of the EWMA and the WRA’s actions?

A. Whether the restrictions are arbitrary
B. Whether the restrictions are reasonable and in the public interest, balancing individual rights with the community’s essential needs
C. Whether Mr. S’s business is profitable
D. Whether the WRA acted on public demand

Answer:
B. Whether the restrictions are reasonable and in the public interest, balancing individual rights with the community’s essential needs.

Legal Reasoning Questions with Answers for CLAT Passage 5

In 2025, the State of Aryavarta enacted the “Public Safety and Order Act” (PSOA) to address the increasing incidents of public protests turning violent. Section 8 of the PSOA states: “No person or group shall organize or participate in a public gathering exceeding 50 persons in any public place without prior written permission from the District Magistrate. Violation of this provision shall attract penalties, including detention for up to 48 hours and a monetary fine.” Section 12 of the Act empowers the police to disperse unlawful gatherings and detain participants if necessary to maintain public order.

In March 2025, a group of university students organized a rally in the capital city to protest against recent fee hikes. The organizers did not seek prior permission, believing their protest was a peaceful exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of speech and assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. The rally attracted over 200 participants and remained peaceful, but the police, acting under Section 12 of the PSOA, dispersed the crowd and detained several students for 24 hours. The detained students challenged their detention, arguing that the PSOA unreasonably restricted their fundamental rights and that peaceful assembly should not require prior permission.

The State defended the Act, contending that reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble can be imposed in the interest of public order as per Article 19(3) of the Constitution. The matter is now before the High Court, which must decide whether the actions taken under the PSOA were constitutionally valid and whether the students’ rights were violated.

Question 1. According to Section 8 of the PSOA, what is required before organizing a public gathering of more than 50 persons in a public place?

A. Informing the local police
B. Obtaining prior written permission from the District Magistrate
C. Publishing a notice in the newspaper
D. No requirement if the gathering is peaceful

Answer:
B. Obtaining prior written permission from the District Magistrate.

Question 2. Were the police justified in dispersing the rally and detaining the students under the PSOA?

A. Yes, because the gathering exceeded 50 persons without permission, violating Section 8
B. No, because the protest was peaceful
C. Yes, but only if violence occurred
D. No, unless the students were causing a public nuisance

Answer:
A. Yes, because the gathering exceeded 50 persons without permission, violating Section 8.

Question 3. Can the right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) be restricted by laws like the PSOA?

A. No, it is an absolute right
B. Yes, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order under Article 19(3)

C. Only during a national emergency
D. No, unless the President approves

Answer:
B. Yes, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order under Article 19(3).

Question 4. Did the students’ failure to obtain permission affect the legality of their assembly under the PSOA?

A. No, because their intention was peaceful
B. Yes, because the law requires permission regardless of the nature of the assembly
C. No, if no damage was caused
D. Only if the police were informed in advance

Answer:
B. Yes, because the law requires permission regardless of the nature of the assembly.

Question 5. What principle should the High Court apply in deciding whether the PSOA’s restrictions are constitutionally valid?

A. Whether the restrictions are arbitrary
B. Whether the restrictions are reasonable and necessary for maintaining public order, balancing individual rights with societal interests
C. Whether the students apologized
D. Whether the rally was covered by the media

Answer:
B. Whether the restrictions are reasonable and necessary for maintaining public order, balancing individual rights with societal interests.

How to Prepare Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2026?

Candidates do not need prior knowledge of law to answer legal questions of CLAT 2026. They need an understanding of how to apply a legal principle in a given situation. Some preparation tips are as follows. Some preparation tips for legal reasoning questions of CLAT 2026. 

• Focus on understanding key terms and principles, as these are asked in the passage-based questions. Study fundamental concepts from Contract Law, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Torts, and Family Law. 
• Practice questions where you have to apply legal principles to various factual scenarios. This will help you improve your analytical skills to analyze and reason the given situation. 
• Regularly read newspapers, legal articles, and editorials to improve reading speed and comprehension. Practice summarizing passages and identifying main arguments to tackle lengthy and complex legal texts effectively.
• Attempt previous years’ CLAT papers and mock tests regularly. They give insight into the types of questions asked and improve your time management and accuracy.