Legal Reasoning Questions For AILET 2022 PDF Download Here

Legal reasoning is one of the important sections in the AILET exam. A total of 35 questions will be asked from this section in the exam. 

To help you understand what type of questions are asked from this section, this post shall provide the Legal Reasoning Questions for the AILET exam.

Most Important Legal Reasoning Questions for AILET 2022

In the legal reasoning section, the questions test your legal reasoning, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability. You must have a clear knowledge of judgments and amendments to answer the legal facts questions.

The following are some of the important Questions Asked in the AILET Exam last year. Practising these questions regularly would help improve your problem-solving skills.

Passage 1

Duress is when a person performs an act due to violence, threat or other pressure against the person. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, duress may be “any unlawful threat or coercion used… to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]”. Duress is the weapon with which the common law protects the victim of improper pressure.

Download Free Study Material For AILET Exam by LegalEdge

The court intervenes where a party enters into a contract due to pressure which the law regards as unacceptable. There is a thin between acceptable and unacceptable pressure, which has been shifting over time. The boundaries of unacceptable pressure have been pushed outwards to encompass many more forms of pressure, including economic pressure.

In economic duress, some judges are already adopting a restrictive approach, making it more difficult for relief to be available on this ground. The conceptual framework for allowing a duress defence generally stems from the laudable notion that one should not be forced into contracting with another but should come to the bargain voluntarily. Volition is the touchstone of the freedom to contract. At common law, when an agreement is the product of coercion and not entered into voluntarily, it was considered void ab initio.

The nature of the coercion that would support a defence was limited historically to threatened or actual imprisonment or fear of loss of life and limb. As the law developed in the early part of the last century, the threats that could qualify under the duress doctrine broadened in scope to include threats to detain goods. In addition, courts began to find that threatened breaches of contract resulting in irreparable harm constituted duress.

Originally, the doctrine's parameters were very narrow in that an agreement could be avoided for duress only where the duress was in the form of a threat to the person. Subsequently, it was accepted that duress of goods could also vitiate consent to an agreement. Recent developments regarding economic duress show that the categories of duress should not be regarded as closed.

AILET mock test

AILET mock test

Q1) X and Y are neighbours. X comes to know that Y had stolen the goods of Z. X tells Y to sell him certain books at a price of Rs.500 wherein the actual price of the books is Rs.5000. Y refuses this arrangement, but X threatens to file a complaint about the theft, due to which Y agrees. Decide the validity of the contract.

(a) The contract is void ab initio as it was not voluntarily entered.

(b) The contract is not valid as the consideration has to be reasonable.

(c) The contract is valid as it was based on initiating a lawful prosecution against the person.

(d) The contract is not valid, and it amounted to economic duress.

Q2) There was an agreement between Ghanshyam, a young songwriter and FITZI Music Company. The arrangement was for the period of five years and would automatically be extended for another 5 years if the worth of Ghanshyam reaches an amount of Rs 10 00,000. However, the company could terminate the contract at any time with a month’s notice. Ghanshyam did have that, and therefore, he opted out of it. Decide.

(a) There was no pressure exercised, but the terms were conditional.

(b) There was no pressure as Ghanshyam had the liberty not to agree.

(c) There existed some pressure evident from the terms of the contract.

(d) There was no pressure as a reasonable time duration was offered before the termination of the contract.

Q3) Zen is a renowned doctor undertaking the treatment of Mona, an 80-year-old woman, for a period of 15 years. They develop a healthy relationship wherein Zen takes care of her as a mother. Mona also considers Zen-like, a son. In an instance, Mona decides to gift a house to Zen out of her property. Decide.

(a) There existed an element of duress as Zen takes care of her for a long time, putting him into a dominant position.

(b) There existed no element of duress as this arrangement was out of will by Mona.

(c) There existed no element of duress as they developed a healthy relationship.

(d) There existed an element of duress because Mona felt obligated to do this in exchange for the care she received.

Q4) Monica is an unemployed person, and Zoto is the Chief Operating Officer in an organization. Monica meets Zoto and gets her some expensive gifts to secure a position in the organization. Decide whether there exists an element of duress in the existing situation.

(a) Yes, as it puts an obligation on Zoto to reciprocate.

(b) Yes, as it was intended to secure employment in the organization.

(c) No, as this gift has not impacted the arrangement.

(d) No, because Monica is not in a dominant position but Zoto.

Q5) Harman is a resident of New Delhi. Sharman lives in New York. Sharman threatens Harman to enter into a contract with him. Otherwise, he would kidnap his son and kill his wife. Due to this, he enters into the contract. After some time, Harman denies fulfilling the obligations and alleges that he was coerced. Decide.

(a) The claim is justified as he was threatened through an act against his family.

(b) The claim is not justified as it would not have been possible for Sharman to commit the act.

(c) The claim is not justified as it gave Harman enough access and time to approach protection before entering the contract.

(d) Both (b) and (c)

Passage 2

Under Section 306 of IPC, abetment to suicide could result in a jail term that may extend to ten years and a fine. Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment. It can occur in three major ways: instigation, conspiring to do or illegally omit to do an act and intentionally aiding the commission of suicide.

In Ramesh Kumar v. the State of Chattisgarh, the SC held that the prosecution has to prove: that the deceased was instigated and that the accused knew with reasonable certainty that his instigation would incite such consequences. In Chitresh Chopra v. State, the SC said that instigation could be in the form of goading, provoking or urging someone forward until they teeter on the edge of ruin and see no other choice. Elucidating the concept of intentionally aiding suicide, the SC in Sohan Raj Sharma v. the State of Haryana said that abetment is a mental process of instigating a person and involves intentionally aiding that person in committing the act. Most importantly, for a conviction to be sustained, it is necessary that an active act or direct act of the abettor led the deceased to take such a step, the SC said in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh.

For charges of abetment under Section 306, it has to be proven that there is the existence of menswear or intention on the part of the accused. In Gurcharan Singh v. the State of Punjab, it was laid down that menswear cannot be assumed: but be blatantly evident. To prove mensrea, it has to be shown that the accused had a guilty mind and, in furtherance of that state of mind through a direct act, abetted the suicide of the deceased. However, Justice SS Shinde had previously laid down an exception. In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs the State of Maharashtra, he held that in cases where the accused people have no such intention, but they limit the deceased’s choices by causing “tremendous mental tension” to push the deceased to take their life, it can be said that the accused instigated the commission of suicide.

While suicide note is often regarded as clinching evidence, in certain cases like non-payment of dues, the court will also analyse extenuating circumstances. Often, the victim’s decision to end their life is unaccompanied by a direct act of instigation by the accused despite the contents of a suicide note. In the ArnabGoswami case, the prosecution would have to prove that three accused people purposely and maliciously withheld payment of dues knowing about Naik’s fragile mental and financial state. If these elements are satisfied, then non-payment of dues could be held as grounds for abetment of suicide.

Q1) Which of the following is not true about Section 306 of the IPC?

I. the accused must be instigated by the victim.

II. Section 306 is read with section 107 of the IP(c)

III. For abetment, it is necessary to prove mensrea.

(a) Only I (b) Only II (c) Only III (d) None of the above.

Q2) In one of the following cases, it was held that the abetment involves intentionally aiding the person in the commission of the act.

(a) VaijnathKondibaKhandke vs the State of Maharashtra

(b) Ramesh Kumar v. the State of Chattisgarh

(c) Sohan Raj Sharma v. the State of Haryana

(d) Gangula Mohan Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh.

Q3) Which of the following position is correct in the context of the suicide note?

(a) A suicide note is the most important aspect and conclusive proof of the crime of abetment to murder.

(b) A suicide note is not a reliable piece of evidence.

(c) Suicide notes, however strong, cannot be the sole basis of conviction.

(d) Suicide notes are not admissible as evidence in a Court of Law.

Q4) Which of the following cannot be inferred concerning mensrea from the passage?

(a) That it cannot be assumed.

(b) That it has to be blatantly evident.

(c) To prove mensrea, it has to be proved that the accused had a guilty mind.

(d) That the mensrea is not indispensable to the abetment.

Q5) From the context of the passage, what is the meaning of clinching evidence?

(a) Material Evidence.

(b) Non-essential evidence.

(c) Evidence not admissible in Court.

(d) Evidence whose reliability is in question.

Practice More Legal Reasoning Questions for AILET Exam

Passage 3

The police have the power to compel an accused to give blood samples against his wish for investigation. This is clear from Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which expressly says that ‘reasonable force’ can be used for the medical examination of an accused by a police officer. The explanation to that provision states that examination will include blood, bloodstains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and fingernail clippings etc.

The compulsory extraction of bodily substances for criminal investigation will not violate Article 20(3), i.e. protection against self-incrimination. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad held that taking an accused's thumb impressions, fingerprints, and specimen handwritings will not violate Article 20(3). The protection of Article 20(3) is available to matters within the subjective consciousness of a person and not to his physical features, the Court reasoned. Such physical objects did not amount to testimony, and one cannot be said to have been forced to witness against oneself in those cases.

The giving of finger impression or specimen signature or handwriting, strictly speaking, is not to be a witness. To be a witness means imparting knowledge regarding relevant facts, using oral statements or statements in writing, by a person who has personal knowledge of the facts to be communicated to a court or a person holding an enquiry or investigation. The Supreme Court in Selvi v. State distinguished investigative techniques such as narcoanalysis, brain mapping, polygraph tests, and compulsory taking of bodily substances.

The Court held that compelling a person to undergo narco-analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph resulted in a violation of Article 20(3). However, the compulsory drawing of bodily substances will not be hit by Article 20(3), added the Court. There is also an endorsement of the view that the use of 'force as may be reasonably necessary is mandated by law, and hence it meets the threshold of procedure established by law.

Q1) Shruti and her husband Hassan constantly kept fighting over various issues. One day, Shruti was found dead in the kitchen of her house while Hassan was not in the house. Police kept looking for him for several days and then he was found in a friend’s house after 2 months. He claimed that he was scared after seeing his wife’s body and therefore ran away from the house, but the police were certain that Hassan murdered shruti. Due to the lack of evidence, the police requested the District Magistrate to allow brain mapping of Hassan. The permission was granted, but Hassan was very reluctant to go through the same. He was finally compelled by the police to go through brain mapping, and it was then found that he was the one who killed Shruti and then ran away to hide from the police. Is the brain mapping test of Hassan legal?

(a) The brain mapping test of Hassan is legal as the Police are empowered to use force on anyone to take any information which might be useful in finding out the real culprit.

(b) The brain mapping test of Hassan is not legal as compelling a person to go through a brain mapping test which could provide information that might be personal knowledge of facts to the accused is self-incriminating in nature.

(c) The brain mapping test of Hassan is legal as all the evidence related to Shruti’s murder were against Hassan, and it is permissible under law to take any information that is not a subjective consciousness of a person.

(d) The brain mapping test of Hassan is not legal as the police cannot force a person to go through any test that could provide them with the name of the real culprit without any evidence.

Q2) Meena was in love with a boy named Mahesh. Even after many efforts made by Meena to impress Mahesh, he was very reluctant to talk with her. Meena was infuriated with this rejection, and therefore she kidnapped Mahesh’s sister and blackmailed him into talking to her if he wants his sister to be safe. Mahesh filed a complaint against Meena, and she was later caught by the police. Her lawyer claimed that neither Mahesh nor the police has any evidence against Meena to arrest her. The police then forced Meena to tell them where she kept Mahesh’s sister. Her lawyer then filed a complaint in the Session Court contending that her right under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is violated by the police. Decide.

(a) Meena’s right protected under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is not violated by the police. She blackmailed Mahesh to talk with her if he wanted his sister safe, which is evident enough to show that she was the real culprit.

(b) Meena’s right protected under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is not violated by the police as the Police are empowered to use force on anyone to take any information which might be useful in finding out the real culprit.

(c) Meena’s right protected under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is violated by the police as they had no evidence against her. Still, they forced her to give statements that might be self-incriminating.

(d) Meena’s right protected under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is violated by the police as she was forced to be a witness against herself by orally stating where she had kept Mahesh’s sister, which is a personal knowledge to her.

Q3) Jignesh was a very creative person, and he can copy any handwriting very efficiently. The Chief Minister of Jal Pradesh received so many letters under various names, threatening to kill him. The Police began their search for the writers of the letters, and after a continuous search of 3 months, they caught Jignesh. The police asked Jignesh to give the specimen of his handwriting, and to their surprise, his handwriting did not match any of the letters’ handwriting. He was then asked to give his thumb impressions and fingerprints to which Jignesh denied by claiming that they have no evidence against him and cannot ask him to do anything that could be self-incriminating. Can the police force him to give his thumb impressions and fingerprints? Decide.

(a) Yes, the police can force Jignesh to give his thumb impressions and fingerprints. Under Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reasonable force can be used for the medical examination of an accused by a police officer.

(b) Yes, the police can force Jignesh to give his thumb impressions and fingerprints as the Police are empowered to use force on anyone to take any information which might be useful in finding out the real culprit.

(c) No, the police cannot force Jignesh to give his thumb impressions and fingerprints as his handwriting sample was already taken, which did not match any of the letters’ handwriting.

(d) No, the police cannot force Jignesh to give his thumb impressions and fingerprints as he has already given his handwriting sample to prove that he is not the one who wrote letters to the Chief Minister threatening to kill him.

Passage 4

The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of a breach. The term “parties” may seem simple enough. Still, there are situations where it may become doubtful as to exactly who the parties are and, resultantly, who, in the eyes of the law, should be liable or should be compensated in the event of inevitable breaches that may occur from time to time.

The doctrine of Privity” is one of the most controversial doctrines under the law of contracts, including that in the country of India. The debates are not just due to the lack of clarity in the statutes or dissenting judicial pronouncements, but much of these owe to the academic and judicial debates linked with the ground roots. The debates and discussions on the Doctrine of Privity are relevant not only in daily life commercial contracts but also in the less frequent and comprehensive transactional contracts.

It can be seen that practices such as imposing obligations on other party’s affiliates, relatives and agents concerning terms like restrictive covenants, non-compete and confidentiality obligations are quite common for the parties under a contract these days. The interest of such third parties is secured by the contracting parties through which they have been benefited or burdened by the contract.

No doubt there are volumes of cases in the books and journals in which such related third parties who are not parties to a contract have been allowed to sue upon it, and their interest is secured against any breach by the counterparty. But those cases are based on the view that such related third parties are claiming through a party to the contract that it is in the position of a “critique trust” or trust or admission or of a principal suing through an agent, that under the old procedure he/it could have filed a suit in equity, even if he/it could not have sued at common law.

Q1) Anita and Vijay were going to get married. Vijay’s father and his prospective father-in-law mutually agreed to pay sums of money to Vijay in the event of marriage. Vijay got married, but the father-in-law died before making the payment of his portion of the money. Vijay wanted to sue the representatives for claiming the amount. Decide.

(a) The claim will succeed as the obligation has not been performed.

(b) The claim will not succeed as Vijay is a stranger to the agreement.

(c) The claim will not succeed as the representatives cannot be made liable in the existing situation.

(d) The claim will succeed as the agreement was for the benefit of Vijay.

Q2) The wife of Y left him because of his cruel tendencies towards her. Later, Y executes an agreement with his father, starting to treat the wife properly. On failure of fulfilment of the obligation, he would be entitled to pay monthly maintenance along with a dwelling to her. However, she was mistreated again and decided to file a suit for the same. Decide.

(a) The suit is maintainable as she has a substantial interest in the agreement.

(b) The suit is not maintainable as she is not the party to the agreement.

(c) The suit is maintainable as it is purported out of trust.

(d) The suit is not maintainable as it would defy the privity of arrangement.

Q3) Yashwardhan was appointed as the successor by his father and was provided with possession of his entire estate. In consideration of the same, Yashwardhan agreed to pay a certain sum of money and give a village to Johan, the illegitimate son of his father. This was to be undertaken on his attaining of majority. After few years, Johan came to know about it and decided to claim as per the agreement. Decide.

(a) The claim is not justified as he was not a part of the agreement.

(b) The claim is justified as it was made for his benefit.

(c) The claim is justified as there existed an element of trust.

(d) The claim is not justified as he did not provide any consideration.

Q4) Narayan makes a contract with Devi to provide her with a monthly allowance of Rs. 10,000 during her lifetime and after that to her son Vinod. The transaction has been admitted in the presence of Vinod. However, after the death of Devi, Narayan fails to pay the amount. Vinod decides to file a suit to claim the predetermined amount. Decide.

(a) Vinod will not succeed due to him not being a party to the transaction

(b) Vinod will succeed as acknowledgement was made in his presence.

(c) Vinod will not succeed as he did not provide for consideration.

(d) Both (a) and (c).

Download Legal Reasoning Questions PDF for AILET

Q5) X acts as an agent on behalf of Z against a third-party Y in selling a tulip farm. Y fails to make the payment for the aforementioned sale. Aggrieved by the same, Z decides to file a suit against Y to claim the amount. Decide.

(a) The suit is maintainable as X acts on behalf of Z.

(b) The suit is not maintainable as the arrangement was between X and Y.

(c) The suit is maintainable on account of trust and equity.

(d) The suit is not maintainable as the only X has the right to sue Y.

How to Attempt Legal Reasoning Questions for AILET?

Following the expert-curated Preparation Tips for AILET Legal Reasoning section will help enhance your problem-solving skills and score good marks in the upcoming exam.

In this section, the passage will be based on a legal principle. Hence, the best thing to solve the questions is to analyze the fact and then apply the legal principles.  

  • Practice lengthy reasoning questions from previous year papers as most of the questions from the past two years were lengthy. 
  • Choose the option closer to your pre-decided answer if you find two answers to the same question.
  • Do not assume anything while answering the question in the exam.

FAQ's

How many questions are asked from the legal reasoning in the AILET 2022 Exam?

A total of 35 questions will be asked from the legal aptitude section in the AILET 2022 Exam.

What is the ideal time to start preparing for AILET Legal Aptitude?

You should require at least 3-4 months time to complete the syllabus of legal aptitude section of AILET exam 2021.

How do I improve my legal reasoning skills for AILET 2022 exam?

  • Read the principle very carefully
  • Try to keep your scope of understanding and application of the law limited to the principles provided
  • Instead of choosing the ideal option, lookout for the best suitable answer

How can I improve my accuracy while solving Legal Reasoning questions for AILET?

You can easily improve your speed and accuracy by solving as many sample papers as possible. Also, practicing mock tests would definitely improve your time management skills and problem-solving techniques.

How can I better solve Legal Reasoning Questions for AILET?

Following the expert tips would definitely help you to prepare better for the AILET 2022 Exam. Begin your preparation by studying from the right books which covers all the concepts and topics according to the latest exam pattern and syllabus. One of the best methods to score more marks in the exam is to practice as many previous year question papers as possible.