CLAT 2020: Sample questions with answers for Current Affairs, GK and Legal Reasoning

 Consortium of National Law Universities conducts the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) every year for admissions to UG and PG Law programmes offered by 22 National Law

Universities across the country.

The CLAT syllabus is divided into four units as follows —English Language, Current Affairs and General Knowledge, Legal Reasoning, Logical Reasoning, and Quantitative Techniques. CLAT exam is near by and preparing with sample questions is essential to crack the exam.

To help you out with CLAT exam preparation, here are some questions and answers that come under Current Affairs & General Knowledge and Legal Reasoning section.

Current Affairs and General Knowledge

Question 1. Turkey has aided all shades of Syrian rebels (except the Kurds) with arms and other kinds of support in the Syrian civil war since it began in 2011. The Turkish army has also launched incursions across the border and now controls swathes of territory in northern Syria. Ankara’s armed intervention in its southern neighbour, though, is only one aspect of its autocratic President Erdogan’s policies. As the Syrian conflict continues to rage, a mass of people are trying to get away from the line of fire. These refugees have moved both, within the country as well as outside of it. A large number of them have been trying to go to Europe to build better lives for themselves. To achieve this, they have to move through Turkish territory. Erdogan has been cynically using these unfortunate people as leverage in his dealings with Europe.

Recently, the Syrian conflict threatened to heat up in the north of the country again. On 27th February, a Syrian airstrike killed 34 Turkish soldiers in the region. Turkey has since retaliated by attacking Syrian forces operating against terrorists of Hayat Tahrir al Shams, a branch of Al Qaeda. This prompted a Russian warning. Moscow is the primary backer of the Assad regime in Syria and has played a major role in propping it up. Turkey demanded that its NATO allies in Europe and America help it in its confrontation with Russia. The European states, especially France, have repeatedly criticized Erdogan over his involvement in the Syrian war. To convince the Europeans of the demerits of such a course, Erdogan opened the gates of Europe to refugees.

This isn't the first time that Europe is facing a migrant crisis. In 2015, more than a million refugees arrived in Europe, mostly through Turkey. Although initially welcomed, the arrivals soon led to political upheavals in host nations. New arrivals were portrayed as a cultural threat.

Overtly, most leaders in Europe proclaim support to humanitarian values. However, the polities in these states have found it increasingly difficult to accept new migrants. Frequent attacks by Islamic radicals have also made the populace more aware of the dangers of uncontrolled migration. The right-leaning political parties gained traction in several states due to anti-immigrant sentiments. On the other hand, leftist parties in Europe have found it difficult to go against their own decades-long policies. To overcome the political division, the European Union (EU) signed an agreement with Turkey. In return for a curb to uncontrolled migration, the EU agreed to pay 6 billion Euros to Ankara. It also agreed to discuss visa-free travel for Turks to Europe and restart Turkey’s EU accession talks.

a. Who has Erdogan been using as leverage?

A. The Syrian rebels that Turkey aides

B. The Kurd rebels

C. The Hayat al Tahrir Shams, branch of Al Qaeda that attacked Syrian forces

D. The Syrian refugees moving through Turkey to build a better life in Europe

Answer D

Explanation:

As the Syrian conflict continues to rage, a mass of people are trying to get away from the line of fire. These refugees have moved both, within the country as well as outside of it. A large number of them have been trying to go to Europe to build better lives for themselves. To achieve this, they have to move through Turkish territory. Erdogan has been cynically using these unfortunate people as leverage in his dealings with Europe.

b. Who are the Kurds?

A. One of the indigenous peoples of the Mesopotamian plains

B. One of the nomadic tribes of Russia

C. The native people of Kyrgyzstan

D. A sheep species found in the Hindukush

Answer A

Explanation:

The Kurds are one of the indigenous peoples of the Mesopotamian plains and the highlands in what are now south-eastern Turkey, north-eastern Syria, northern Iraq, north-western Iran and south-western Armenia. There are an estimated 25 million to 35 million ethnic Kurds inhabit a mountainous region straddling Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia. But they have never had a widely-recognized permanent nation state of their own. Today, they form a distinctive community, united through race, culture and language, even though they have no standard dialect. They also adhere to a number of different religions and creeds, although the majority is Sunni Muslims.

c. Who is the head of Al Qaeda?

A. Ayman Mohammed Rabi al-Zawahiri

B. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

C. Osama bin Laden

D. Daud Ibrahim

Answer A

Explanation:

Ayman Mohammed Rabi al-Zawahiri (born June 19, 1951) is an Egyptian terrorist known for being the leader of terrorist group Al Qaeda since June 2011, succeeding Osama bin Laden following his death.

d. What is the majority religion of Turkey?

A. Christianity

B. Sunni Islam

C. Judaism

D. Shi’a Islam

Answer B

Explanation:

Islam is the largest religion in Turkey according to the state, with 98% of the population being automatically registered by the state as Muslim, for anyone whose parents are not of any other officially recognised religion and remaining 1% are not religious, 0.2% are Christians and 0.8% are Others religion affiliation. Most Muslims in Turkey are Sunnis forming about 80.5%.

e. What circumstances led to increased optimism regarding Turkey's EU membership application?

A. Improvement in Turkish-Greek relations

B. A stronger Turkish commitment to meeting the Copenhagen criteria

C. A change in government in Germany

D. All of the above

Answer D

Explanation:

Turkey's membership prospects improved following a thaw in Greek-Turkish relations, a stronger Turkish commitment to meeting the Copenhagen criteria and a change of government in Germany. Turkish-Greek relations improved following the 'seismic diplomacy' of 1999: the mutual exchange of aid and condolences following earthquakes in the two countries that year. This in turn softened Greek opposition to Turkish membership. The prospect of Turkish membership also improved following a change of government in Germany in 1998. A change of government in Turkey in 2002 also produced rapid progress to meeting the Copenhagen criteria. Moreover, the international climate meant that geo-strategic factors were increasingly in Turkey's favour, although opposition to its accession remained strong in some states in 2004, particularly in France.

Legal Reasoning

Question 1. This is not pedantic hair-splitting. On the contrary, it is deeply important, because respect for precedent is at the bedrock of our judicial system, and of the rule of law. Ordinarily, prior judgments of the Supreme Court are binding, and meant to be followed: this is what provides the system the stability and continuity that differentiates the rule of law from the rule of judges. Now if a later bench of the Court wants to go against binding precedent, a series of ground-rules exist to ensure that this can only happen after careful consideration and reflection, and in judicial proceedings where both sides can put their case. These ground rules stipulate, for example, that if a smaller bench feels that the binding decision of a previous, larger bench is incorrect, it “refers” the case to a larger bench to consider; and in general, this referral takes place incrementally (for example, from two judges to three, three to five etc. – although there have, of course, been exceptions). The reason for this – to reiterate – is that respect for precedent requires, logically, that settled law be disturbed only when there are weighty reasons for doing so.

However, there is something more concerning here. If the nine-judge bench is no longer restricting itself to the reference questions – but intends to hear these petitions as well – then it at least potentially follows that the Sabarimala petitions – out of which the review order arose – will also now be the subject matter of the hearing. This would be truly extraordinary: a final judgment of the Court (five judges) would be effectively re-heard by a nine-judge bench, against all existing norms and conventions. Recall that no judgment has yet doubted the correctness of the original Sabarimala decision, or made a reference to have it reconsidered. In other words, this “second round” with a larger bench is taking place purely by virtue of the Chief Justice exercising his administrative fiat.

It should be obvious by now that this is no longer about whether the original judgment in Sabarimala was right or wrong. People can – and do – have different views about that, and it would be entirely open to later benches to reconsider it, following proper procedures. But what is at stake here is something deeper: it is whether precedent continues to have any meaning at the Supreme Court, or whether what we are witnessing is a gradual metamorphosis of the Supreme Court of India into the Supreme Chief Justice of India (a point I have written about before). Because what has happened here is that a number crucial issues that required judicial consideration in a proper way (whether there is a conflict between Shirur Mutt and Durgah, requiring resolution; whether the referred questions actually affect the pending cases; and whether Sabarimala ought to be reconsidered) have been implicitly decided through the constitution of a nine-judge bench, by administrative fiat.

a. What is the context under which the author differentiates between rule of law and rule of judges?

A. Argument about supremacy of the constitution

B. Binding precedents provide stability to the system

C. Questioning the credibility of the court

D. Arbitrary administrative fiats of judges

Answer B

Explanation:

Prior judgments of the Supreme Court are binding, and meant to be followed: this is what provides the system the stability and continuity that differentiates the rule of law from the rule of judges.

b. Why does the author believe that the supreme court is being distorted to a one man rule?

A. The court is taking into consideration matters which were not for review before them

B. The Author is being paranoidC. The court is not following proper procedure established and hence, the administrative fiats are arbitrary

D. The court is exercising extra-territorial jurisdiction

Answer 

Explanation

Clear inference from the paragraph. There is a possibility that some people may think A should be the answer, they are not wrong but C is a more comprehensive answer and A is only partially true as an explanation

c. Why is the review mechanism of the supreme court incremental in nature

A. More judges translate into better judgements

B Reviews have limited grounds than petitions

C. To place a deterrent effect on frivolous appeals

D. Respect for precedent requires settled law to be disturbed only when there are justifiable reasons for it

Answer 

Explanation

Mentioned in First paragraph

d. According to the author, what provides the system stability and continuity?

A. The binding nature of prior judgments of the Supreme Court

B. Proper procedure getting broken

C. To not show respect to precedent

D. Referring of an incorrect decision from a lower court to higher court

Answer A

Explanation:

Mentioned in the first paragraph, “Ordinarily, prior judgments of the Supreme Court are binding, and meant to be followed: this is what provides the system the stability and continuity that differentiates the rule of law from the rule of judges.”

e.Which of the following pertains to proper procedure when rectifying precedence?

A. Referring of a binding decision from a 3 judge bench to 2 judge bench

B. Referring of a binding decision from a 9 judge bench to 7 judge bench

C. Referring of a binding decision from a 5 judge bench to 3 judge bench

D. Referring of a binding decision from a 5 judge bench to 9 judge bench

Answer D

Explanation:

If a smaller bench feels that the binding decision of a previous bench is incorrect, it “refers” the case to a larger bench to consider. This referral takes place incrementally (for example, from two judges to three, three to five, etc.). The reason for this is that respect for precedent requires, logically, that settled law be disturbed only when there are weighty reasons for doing so.