CLAT 2026 Legal Reasoning Analysis with Questions & Answers

The Legal Reasoning section of CLAT 2026 tested candidates on constitutional law, governance, public policy, and contemporary legal developments. This article provides a detailed analysis along with complete questions, options, correct answers, and brief explanations.

Overview of Legal Reasoning Section in CLAT 2026

• Total Questions: 30
• Type: Passage-Based Legal Reasoning
• Difficulty Level: Moderate
• Main Focus: Constitutional Law, Governance, Social Issues

The section was comprehension-based and required strong reading skills along with basic legal awareness.

Difficulty Level Analysis

The Legal Reasoning section was of Moderate difficulty. Questions were mostly direct, but long passages and close options required careful reading.

• Constitutional Law: Moderate
• Governance Issues: Moderate
• Judicial Decisions: Moderate
• Time Management: Important

CLAT 2026 Legal Reasoning – Questions, Answers & Explanations

Passage XI: One Nation Policies (Q53–Q58)

One of the central motifs of the past decade of governance under Indian Prime Minister has been the embrace of policy measures that seek to apply uniform solutions to disparate policy dilemmas facing the country. These measures, often termed One Nation policies, are motivated by a desire to replace the existing patchwork of state- specific policies, regulations, and regimes with measures that are identical across the length and breadth of India.

There are numerous examples of such One Nation policies being propagated and, in several cases, implemented in the eleven years since this Government came to power. For instance, in 2016, Parliament passed a series of constitutional amendments to introduce a new Goods and Services Tax (GST), which introduced a unified value-added tax in place of state-specific levies. This reform, known informally as One Nation, One Tax, had been debated and discussed for nearly two decades and was widely touted as an important precursor to forging a common market across India’s twenty-eight states.

In a similar vein, the government rolled out a new initiative to allow Indian citizens to take advantage of subsidized food rations irrespective of their state of residence. This scheme, commonly termed One Nation, One Ration Card, was intended to increase access to welfare benefits, especially for the millions of internal migrants in India without a fixed place of residence.

Earlier this year, the government announced the launch of a new online portal that will provide students, faculty, and researchers across the country’s public higher education institutions with open access to international scholarly journals and articles under a scheme it has dubbed One Nation, One Subscription.

Most notably, the government recently signalled its intention to pursue a monumental One Nation policy that has been long discussed but only recently outlined in detail. This measure, known as One Nation, One Election, would do away with India’s current system of staggered elections for state and national assemblies, replacing it with a framework of simultaneous elections. The proposal, which has featured in many of PM’s speeches in the past, was advanced by a high-level committee (HLC) established by the government in 2023

Q53. Underlying idea of “One Nation” policies:

(A) Strengthen federalism
(B) Uniform solutions across India
(C) Decentralization
(D) Promote diversity

Answer: (B)

Explanation: The passage emphasizes uniform policies replacing state variations.

Q54. Amendment Bill for simultaneous elections:

(A) 129th
(B) 128th
(C) 127th
(D) 126th

Answer: (A)

Q55. Report discussing simultaneous elections:

(A) Verma Committee
(B) Law Commission 2018
(C) Sarkaria Commission
(D) Punchhi Commission

Answer: (B)

Q56. Head of High-Level Committee:

(A) Ram Nath Kovind
(B) Jagdeep Dhankhar
(C) Pranab Mukherjee
(D) Draupadi Murmu

Answer: (A)

Q57. GST rate structure:

(A) 5,12,18,28
(B) 5,12,18
(C) 5,12,40
(D) 5,18,40

Answer: (A)

Q58. One Nation One Ration Card benefits:

(A) Rural population
(B) Farmers
(C) Migrant labourers
(D) Shopkeepers

Answer: (C)

Passage XII: Preamble of Constitution (Q59–Q64)

I may here trace the history of the shaping of the Preamble because this would show that the Preamble was in conformity with the Constitution as it was finally accepted. Not only was the Constitution framed in the light of the Preamble but the Preamble was ultimately settled in the light of the Constitution. In the earliest draft the Preamble was something formal and read: “We, the people of India, seeking to promote the common good, do hereby, through our chosen representatives, enact, adopt and give to ourselves this Constitution.

After the plan of June 3, 1947, which led to the decision to partition the country and to set up two independent Dominions of India and Pakistan, on June 8, 1947, a joint sub¬committee of the Union Constitution and Provincial Constitution Committees, took note that the objective resolution would require amendment in view of the latest announcement of the British Government. The announcement of June 3 had made it clear that full independence, in the form of Dominion Status, would be conferred on India as from August 15, 1947. After examining the implications of partition the sub¬committee thought that the question of making changes in the Objectives Resolution could appropriately be considered only when effect had actually been given to the June 3 Plan. Later on July 12, 1947, the special sub-committee again postponed consideration of the matter. The Union Constitution Committee provisionally accepted the Preamble as drafted by B.N. Rao and reproduced it in its report of July 4, 1947 without any change, with the tacit recognition at that stage that the Preamble would be finally based on the Objectives Resolution. In a statement circulated to members of the Assembly on July 18, 1947 Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru inter alia, observed that the Preamble was covered more or less by the Objectives Resolution which it was intended to incorporate in the final Constitution, subject to some modification on account of the political changes resulting from partition.

Q59. Relation between Preamble and Constitution:

(A) Isolated
(B) Independent
(C) Shaped each other
(D) No relevance

Answer: (C)

Q60. Earliest draft emphasized:

(A) Liberty equality
(B) Sovereign republic
(C) Formal enactment
(D) Unity

Answer: (C)

Q61. Not in Preamble:

(A) Equality
(B) Liberty
(C) Justice-moral ethical legal
(D) Fraternity

Answer: (C)

Q62. Correct arrangement:

(A) Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic
(B) Sovereign Secular Socialist Democratic Republic
(C) Sovereign Socialist Democratic Secular Republic
(D) Secular Socialist Sovereign Democratic Republic

Answer: (A)

Q63. Based on:

(A) Objectives Resolution
(B) Union Committee Report
(C) June 3 Plan
(D) Sub-committee Report

Answer: (A)

Q64. Role of B.N. Rau:

(A) Chairman
(B) Constitutional Advisor
(C) President
(D) Member

Answer: (B)

Passage XIII: Ministerial Ethics (Q65–Q70)

Good governance is only in the hands of good men. No doubt, what is good or bad is not for the court to decide: but the court can always indicate the constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance and purity in administration remind the constitutional functionaries to preserve, protect and promote the same. That ethos are the unwritten words in our Constitution. However, as the Constitution makers stated, there is a presumption that the Prime Minister/Chief Minister would be well advised and guided by such unwritten yet constitutional principles as well. According to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, such things were only to be left to the good sense of the Prime Minister, and for that matter, the Chief Minister of State, since it was expected that the two great constitutional functionaries would not dare to do any infamous thing by inducting an otherwise unfit person to the Council of Ministers. It appears, over a period of time, at least in some cases, it was only a story of great expectations. Some of the instances pointed out in the writ petition indicate that Dr. Ambedkar and other great visionaries in the Constituent Assembly have been bailed out. Qualification has been wrongly understood as the mere absence of prescribed disqualification. Hence, it has become the bounden duty of the court to remind the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the State of their duty to act in accordance with the constitutional aspirations.

No doubt, it is not for the court to issue any direction to the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, as to the manner in which they should exercise their power while selecting the colleagues in the Council of Ministers. That is the constitutional prerogative of those functionaries who are called upon to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. But it is the prophetic duty of this Court to remind the key duty holders about their role in working the Constitution. Hence, I am of the firm view, that the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the State, who themselves have taken oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to discharge their duties faithfully and conscientiously, will be well advised to consider avoiding any person in the Council of Ministers, against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court in respect of offences involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically referred to in Chapter III of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Q65. Court can:

(A) Disqualify
(B) Indicate ethos
(C) Frame rules
(D) Amend Constitution

Answer: (B)

Q66. Ambedkar believed Constitution depends on:

(A) Rigidity
(B) Integrity of administrators
(C) Opposition
(D) Judiciary

Answer: (B)

Q67. Court emphasized avoiding:

(A) Criminal charge holders
(B) Party members
(C) Non-legislators
(D) Outsiders

Answer: (A)

Q68. Court’s role:

(A) Review appointments
(B) Prophetic duty
(C) Veto power
(D) Amend law

Answer: (B)

Q69. Constitutional functionaries:

(A) Ministers
(B) PM + Ministers
(C) CM + Ministers
(D) PM + CM

Answer: (D)

Q70. Not to be appointed:

(A) Any charges
(B) Moral turpitude charges
(C) Proved charges
(D) Pending case

Answer: (B)

Passage XIV: Governor’s Assent (Q71–Q76)

The recent Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) affirmed that a Governor cannot exercise an absolute or “pocket” veto on bills, holding that if assent is withheld, the bill must be returned to the legislature “as soon as possible” for reconsideration, with the Governor having no discretion to withhold assent again. The court established that inaction or indefinite delay is illegal and unconstitutional, prescribing timelines for the Governor’s decision and even “deeming assent” on pending bills in the Tamil Nadu case, establishing a critical precedent for judicial review of gubernatorial powers. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Governor’s power to an absolute or “pocket” veto, which allows for bills to be indefinitely delayed. If a Governor withholds assent to a bill, they are constitutionally obligated to return it to the State Assembly for reconsideration, according to the proviso in Article 200 of the Constitution. If the State Assembly re-enacts a bill after it has been returned by the Governor, the Governor has no choice but to give assent to it and cannot withhold it for a second time. The Court held that indefinitely delaying or remaining silent on bills is unconstitutional and that Governors must act “as soon as possible” on bills. The judgment expanded the scope of judicial review by setting timelines for the Governor’s actions on bills, allowing state governments to approach courts if these timelines are breached. In the case of the Tamil Nadu, the Court used its powers under Article 142 to “deem assent” on the long-pending bills, which had the effect of making any subsequent decision by the President on those bills void.

Q71. Governor’s inaction:

Answer: (B)

Q72. After re-enactment:

Answer: (A)

Q73. State’s remedy:

Answer: (D)

Q74. Likely outcome:

Answer: (C)

Q75. Declaration validity:

Answer: (D)

Q76. Governor’s options:

Answer: (C)

Passage XV: Same-Sex Marriage (Q77–Q82)

Same-sex marriage has no legal recognition in India as per the recent Supreme Court’s judgment, where it was decided that this is an issue for Parliament to address. While Hindu marriages between transgender persons and cisgender men are permissible, and the Court acknowledged systemic discrimination and the right to choose a partner, it held that there is no fundamental right to marry. The government has been urged to form a panel to consider granting more legal rights to same-sex couples, but the legal status of marriage remains unchanged for now. The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty &Anr. v. Union of India (2023), in a majority verdict, ruled that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, making it beyond the court’s scope to legislate on same-sex marriage.

The Court stated that the power to legislate on same-sex marriage rests with the Parliament and state legislatures. The judgment affirmed constitutional rights for LGBTQ+ citizens and the right to choose a partner. The government agreed to set up a panel to explore legal rights and benefits for same-sex couples, though these benefits are not the same as those conferred by marriage. Same-sex couples cannot legally marry and do not receive the same legal rights, such as automatic inheritance, pension, or adoption rights, that legally married couples do. Despite the ruling, LGBTQ+ couples continue to face legal discrimination and have no social recognition of marriage. The Court affirmed the right of same-sex couples to cohabit privately. While the Supreme Court’s verdict brought limited benefits and acknowledgments, it has not legalized same-sex marriage in India, deferring the ultimate decision to the Parliament.

Q77. Legal status:

Answer: (B)

Q78. Court’s reply:

Answer: (B)

Q79. Body to approach:

Answer: (C)

Q80. Right affirmed:

Answer: (C)

Q81. Main obstacle:

Answer: (B)

Q82. ‘IA’ stands for:

Answer: (A)

Preparation Tips for CLAT 2027 Legal Reasoning

• Read legal editorials regularly
• Focus on Constitution and current judgments
• Practice passage-based questions
• Improve reading speed
• Analyse legal sectional mocks

Conclusion

The Legal Reasoning section of CLAT 2026 tested conceptual clarity and reading skills. Students who regularly followed legal news and practiced comprehension performed better. Consistent preparation can make this section highly scoring.

Important Links

• CLAT 2026 Question Paper PDF & Full Analysis
• CLAT 2026 English Section Analysis
• CLAT 2026 GK & Current Affairs Analysis
• CLAT 2026 Logical Reasoning Analysis
• CLAT 2026 Quantitative Aptitude Analysis

For expert CLAT guidance and structured preparation, visit www.delhilawacademy.com.

📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033

📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606

✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com