Prelims · objective
CLAT PG 2026 Question Paper with Answers
2 questions. The first 10 questions are free to attempt. All CLAT PG papers
Question 1 · Prelims
Read the passage and answer the question. Passage: "Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties. Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place." [Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473] Question: Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act is subject to ________ appended to it:
- (A) One exception.
- (B) Two exceptions.
- (C) Three exceptions.
- (D) Four exceptions.
Answer: (C) Three exceptions.
Question 2 · Prelims
Read the passage and answer the question. Passage: Ahmadi, J.(as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323A and 323B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve. Before parting with the case it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired. (Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119) Question: The provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 shall NOT apply to:
- (A) Any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union.
- (B) Officer or servant of the Supreme Court or of any High Court or Courts subordinate.
- (C) Person appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament or to the secretarial staff of any State Legislature or a House thereof or, in the case of a Union Territory having a Legislature, of that Legislature.
- (D) Officers of the Indian Police Services.
Answer: (A) Any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union.