Updated On : July 1, 2023
Readers' Digest: To make each question unique, our LegalEdge experts filtered these out of questions that had been repeated multiple times. So there you have it - every CLAT Torts question ever asked!
There are questions based on the Law of Torts topic under the legal aptitude section of the CLAT exam.
Unlike other sections, you must approach the legal aptitude section differently because the passages must be comprehended to look for facts and applicable rules.
Generally, the law of torts deals with two fundamental questions:
Before answering a question, try to identify who is in the problem is likely to claim and who they might be able to sue. You must prepare legal terminologies and foreign phrases to score well in this section.
Are you wondering about what type of questions are asked on this topic?
This post shall provide Passage-based Questions on Torts for CLAT Exam, preparation tips to solve legal aptitude questions, and more.
Practice is the only key to attempting the law of torts questions in the exam. Try to practice as many questions as possible from the previous year's question papers for CLAT, as it will help improve your reading speed and time management skills in the final exam.
While attempting previous year's papers, try to relate the facts drawn with the question and analyze if they fully support/justify the argument without any assumptions.
To help you get an idea about the type of questions asked in the exam, we have provided a few sample CLAT passage-based questions on the law of torts.
Mahmood Kaskar resided in Mumbai and was long suspected of committing several offences, including smuggling. Kaskar came across a police check-post on the road on 15 December 2019, and, afraid that the police would find the contraband that he had hidden in the trunk of his car, he drove through the check-post instead of stopping.
In doing so, he smashed his car through the barricades at the check-post, and a piece from the borders flew a few feet away and injured a policeman manning the check-post. Ka kar was later caught by the police and charged with obstructing justice, which the police claimed he did by crashing through the check-post. Kaskar was acquit ed of this charge since the police could not produce adequate evidence before the court. Some months later the police, bent on teaching Kaskar a lesson, filed charges of injuring a police officer on duty against Kaskar.
Question: When Kaskar was convicted, he filed an appeal claiming that the decision violated the protection against double jeopardy in Article 20. Will Kaskar succe d?
(a)No, since the second charge filed against Kaskar was about a different offence than the first one.
(b)Yes, since he had already been prosecuted for crashing through the barricades and could not be charged for the same actions again.
(c)Yes, since he had already been acquitted the first time charges were filed against him.
(d)No, since he was long suspected of committing several offences.
Rationale: The correct answer is (a) - no, since the second charge filed against Kaskar was about a different offence than the first one. The passage tells us that the protection against double jeopardy is against a person being 'prosecuted and punished for the same crime more than once.
Since Kaskar was prosecuted for a different offence the second time (that of injuring a police officer on duty) than the first time (that of obstructing justice), the protection against double jeopardy would not apply in this case.
Since the second prosecution involved a different offence, options (b) and (c) cannot be the correct answer. Optio (d) is irrelevant to he question and, cannot be the right answer.
Question: Sometime after the two prosecutions mentioned in the previous question, the police managed to recover CCTV footage from the area near the place where the police check-post was and filed new charges of obstructing justice against Kaskar for crashing through the check-post. They claim that the CCTV footage w uld help them win the case this time. Kask r claims that this new, third trial violates his protection against double jeopardy in Article 20 of the Constitution. Will he succeed?
(a)Yes, since Kaskar is a citizen of India and is protected under Article 20 of the Constitution.
(b)No, since the police were able to bring fresh evidence before the court in this new trial.
(c)Yes, since he had already been prosecuted for obstructing justice and was acquitted.
(d)No, since he was prosecuted but not punished for the same offence in the first trial.
Rationale: The correct answer is (d) - no, since he was prosecuted but not punished for the same offence in the first trial. The pro ection under Article 20 is against a person eing ‘prosecu'ed and punished for the same crime more than once.
Since Kaskar had been prosecuted but not punished in the first trial, he would not have the advantage of this protection under Article 20. For the ame reason, (c) cannot be the correct answer.
hile options (a) and (b) may be accurate, they do not address the issue of whether the protection under Article 20 applies in this third trial, and so, neither (a) nor (b) can be the correct answer.
Question 3:Concerned with the increasing number of instances of rash driving in Mumbai; the legislature passed a law on 12 January 2020, making rash driving a criminal offence punishable with three monmonths'risonment. The police, who are hell-bent on punishing Kaskar y now, fresh file charges and initiate a fourth case against Kaskar, claiming that his act of driving through the police check-post constituted rash driving. Kas ar now claims that this fourth trial violates he first clause of Article 20. Wil the police succeed in this fourth trial?
(a)Y s, since Kaskar had injured a policeman when he drove through the check-post.
(b)No, since driving through a check post does not constitute rash driving.
(c)No, since rash driving was not an offence when Kaskar drove through the police check-post.
(d)Yes, since Kaskar had been prosecuted for different offences in the previous three trials.
Rationale: The correct answer is (c) – no, since rash driving was not an offence when Kaskar drove through the police check-post. The first clause f Article 20 provides that “a
person cannot b" convicted for an offence which was not an offence at the time at which it was committed”. Since rash driv"n was not an offence on 15 December 2019 when K skar drove through the check-post, he cannot be punished for having committed that offence. While options (a) and (b) may or may not be true, they do not ad ress the question of whether Kaskar’s
rights unKaskar'sfirst clause of Article 20 had been violated, and so, neither (a) nor (b) can be the correct answer. Option (d) is irr levant to the question – it addresses the issu of double jeopardy rather than the protection under the first clause of Article 20, and so (d) cannot be the correct answer.
Question: While he was in custody, the police decided to investigate whether Kaskar was involved in the instances of smuggling that he was suspected of having committed. They asked him to roduce a DNA sample that they could use to com are against the evidence they obtained from a boat supposed to have been used in such smuggling activities. Kaskar refused, cl iming that forcing him to provide a DNA sample ould violate his protection against self-incrimination under Article 20. Can the police for e Kaskar provide the DNA sample?
(a)Yes, since NA samples amount to physical evidence and not testimonial evidence.
(b)Yes, since smuggling is a serious offence, Kaskar was already suspected of being involved.
(c)No, since producing DNA samples would amount to compelling Kaskar to be a witness against himself.
(d)No, since Kaskar had not been charged with smuggling when he was asked to produce the sample.
Read more: Short tricks to enhance your CLAT English preparation...
Rationale: The correct answer is (a) – yes since DNA samples amount to physical evidence not testimonial evidence. The decision in Kathu Kalu Oghad clarifies t at the protection against self-incrimination der Article 20 extends to “the production of information based on perso"al knowledge” (testimonial evidence) but not ‘physical ev"dence’ like “a writing sample or'a thumb impressio'”.
For"this reason, (c) cannot be the correct"answer. Options (b) and (d) may be accurate, but they do not address the question, so neither can the correct answer.
Question: Assuming that the Supreme Court was bound to follow the decision in Kathu Kalu Oghad while deciding Selvi, what conclusion should the Supreme Court have taken in Selvi as regards the forcible administration of narco-analysis on a person?
(a)It would be constitutional since it is a new technology and is different from other techniques of extracting evidence like fingerprints or thumb impressions.
(b)It would be unconstitutional since it would be forcibly extracting testimonial evidence.
(c)It would be constitutional since it only has a physical effect, which would amount to extracting physical evidence.
(d)It would be unconstitutional since it puts a person in an abnormal state of mind where they cannot remember their rights under Article 20.
The correct answer is (b) – it would be unconstitutional since it would be forcibly extracting testimonial evidence. As the passage tells us, the administration of sodium pentothal would lower a person’s inhibitions and t ke them into a trance, inducing them person'srse casually – as a result, they may provide information based on personal knowledge (testimonial evidence).
While it may be new technology and different from thumb impressions or handwriting samples, the forcible use of narco-analysis may result in the extraction of testimonial evidence, so (a) cannot be the correct answer. While it may have a physical effect, the result of the forcible administra ion of narco-analysis would be the extracti n of testimonial evidence, so (c) cannot be the correct answer.
While (d) may be true, it does not address the issue of whether the forcible administration of narco-analysis violates the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20, so (d) cannot be the correct answer.
Most civil cases deal with contracts, promissory notes etc., which are not matters involving reckless wrongdoing or morally reprehensive conduct; in most cases, the subject matter is irrelevant to the character of persons, so it is never accepted as evidence. Character evidence is thus received only in situations where the facts show that it is r levant. Though the test appears to be relev n , there are several civil cases where a person's c aracter becomes relevant, yet character evi e ce is excluded. For example, in person's claims against assault or negligence, the defendant's excellent nature would be appropriate. Yet, character e idence is not accepted in tortuous claims, while it is taken in crim nal actions for the same offences of assault o egligence. Similarly, in quasi-criminal cases, where features belonging to classes of action can b found, civil courts do not entertain character dence even if it could be accepted in a criminal court for the same offence.
Read more: Attempting CLAT Mock Tests will help increase your confidence levels...
Likewise, it is seen that when criminal charges are involved in a civil suit, character evidence is not admissible. One of the reasons for this in both India and England is stated to be a policy de ision to restrain civil proceedings within manageable l mits and prevent protracted legal proceedings. It is said that such a move has been made in order to avoid unfairness to civil litigants as th y cannot be expected to protect themselves against alle a ions of bad character, which may range over their whole life. However, this reasoning should also hold good for criminal cases, as character evidence n criminal cases may also involve imputations that may a ge throughout one’s life. The reason for allowing for character evidence here may be that the repercussone'sof a c iminal trial differ from that of a civil case. Criminal c ses involve the possibility of imprisonment. For example, the Indian Penal Co e provides three months imprisonment for assault withou rave and sudden provocation. At the same time, a tort o s claim against assault will only result in damages. This might be one of the reasons behind admitting character evid n e in criminal cases. haracter Evidence When Admissible- Thus, we c n see that character evidence in civil ca es is admissible when the character of the a ty or third party is a fact in issue. The nature of the party or third party becomes relevant from the facts of the case, t at is, when it is needed as circumstantial evi e ce to prove another fact in issue. The character of a witness is in question.
Question: Remedy against the off n e of assault can be claimed under
(a) Law of Tort
(b) Indian Penal Code
(c) Both a and b
(d) None of the above
Rationale: In a tortuous claim against assault or negligence, the defendant's good character would be relevant, yet character evidence is not accepted in tdefendant'sims, while it is taken in criminal actions for the same offences of assault or negligence.
Question: Is character evidence admissible in a civil suit from criminal action?
(d) Not sure
Rationale: Character evidence is not admissible when criminal charges are involved in a civil suit.
Question: Why is character evidence not admissible in civil cases
(a) In civil cases, the society at large is not affected. Thus, it is unfair that the accused should carry a bad image for the rest of his life
(b In civil cases, the society at large is affected hus, it is unfair that the accused should carry a bad image for the rest of his life
(c In civil cases, the society at large is not affe t d. Thus, it is fair that the accused should carry a bad image for the rest of his life
(d) n civil cases, the society at large is affected. h s, it is fair that the accused should carry a bad image for the rest of his life
Answ r: (a)
Read more: Important English vocabulary qu s ions for CLAT...
Rationale: One of the reasons for this in both India and England is stated to be a policy decision order to restrain civil proceedings within manageable limits and prevent protracted legal proceedings. It is said that such a move has been made in order to avoid unfairness to civil litigants as th y cannot be expected to protect themselv s gainst allegations of bad character, which may range over their whole life.
Question: What is the punishment prescribed for the offence of assault under the Law of Tort?
(a) Three months imprisonment
(c) Both a and b
(d) Only a
Rationale: a tortious claim against assault will only result in damages
The questions in the legal aptitude section are designed to test your legal aptitude, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability in legal issues.
To help you quickly solve the legal aptitude section, we have provided some of the best preparation tips for CLAT Legal Aptitude in the post below.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many questions will be asked in CLAT Legal Aptitude section?
What is the purpose of the Legal Reasoning section in the CLAT exam?
What topics are covered in the passages of the Official CLAT Legal Reasoning Sample Paper?
How can a general awareness of contemporary legal and moral issues benefit me in the Legal Reasoning section?
How to increase marks in CLAT Legal Reasoning section?
What is a good score in CLAT Legal Reasoning Sample Paper (official)?