CLAT Legal Reasoning
As the name indicates, CLAT Legal Reasoning section has a distinct element of law. To crack these questions, ideally, a candidate has to keep reading any news and opinion articles from at least one newspaper. A basic idea regarding the Current Affairs of legal issues will drastically improve the reading speed and comprehension. Though deeper understanding of law is not mandatory, keeping oneself abreast of the current happenings will prove to a competitive edge. The passages have been selected carefully to encompass a legal context in them.
As with the CLAT Logical Reasoning section and the CLAT English Language section, adequate attention has been given to ensure the passages are from a range of topics. Needless to say, the questions are pegged exactly at the level of difficulty of CLAT, with an eye on the samples published by the Consortium of NLUs.
Enough said. In for some serious Legal Reasoning? Let’s get cracking!
CLAT 2020 Legal Reasoning: India – Natural Justice
Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word 'Jus Natural' of the Roman law and it is closely related to Common law and moral principles but is not codified. It is a law of nature which is not derived from any statute or constitution. The principle of Natural Justice is adhered to by all the citizens of civilised State with Supreme importance. Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making procedure on a particular issue. Sometimes, it doesn‘t matter what is the reasonable decision but in the end, what matters is the procedure and who all are engaged in taking the reasonable decision. It is not restricted within the concept of 'fairness' it has different colours and shades which vary from the context. Basically, natural justice consists of 3 rules.
The first one is “Hearing rule” which states that the person or party who is affected by the decision made by the Panel of expert members should be given a fair opportunity to express his point of view to defend himself. Secondly, “Bias rule” generally expresses that Panel of expert should be free from bias while taking the decision. The decision should be given in a free and fair manner which can fulfil the rule of natural justice. And thirdly, “Reasoned Decision” which states that order, decision or judgement of the Court given by the Presiding authorities with a valid and reasonable ground. The principles of Natural Justice have been adopted and followed by the judiciary to protect public rights against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authority. One can easily see that the rule of natural justice include the concept of fairness: they stay alive and support to safeguard the fair dealing.
Source: Excerpt taken from blog.ipleaders.in (Dated - 12th June, 2019)
Mr. X is a Public Servant, employed in a PSU and Mrs Y who is the wife of Mr. X is also an employee of the same PSU. Ms A files a complaint against Mr. X for sexual harassment at workplace before the ICC (Internal Complaints Committee), which is headed by Mrs Y. After completing her inquiry she held that Mr. X is guilty and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him. Now, on what grounds Mr. X may challenge her findings?
- Mrs Y is an employee of the same institution and the inquiry should have been conducted by a person outside the institution.
- The complaint was filed by a female employee, so the inquiry must have been conducted by a male employee.
- Mrs Y is the wife of Mr. X and she holds a personal bias in the case, so the inquiry should not have been conducted by her.
- Mr. X being the accused should have conducted the inquiry himself.
Explanatory Answer
Mrs Y is the wife of Mr X. Since Mr X is involved, under the principles of natural justice, Mrs Y cannot be part of the inquiry process.
CAT Coaching in Chennai
CAT 2021
Enroll at 49,000/-
44,000/-
Online Classroom Batches Starting Now!