CLAT — reading a legal problem
Read the segments, find the perspectives, link to the Constitution and precedent, then conclude.
Confirm the current pattern on the Consortium of NLUs website. Recent papers have been passage-based, with 120 questions in 2 hours, +1 for correct and −0.25 for wrong.
Legal reasoning rewards a fixed routine more than memory.
1. Read the segments
Split the facts by legal role: who acted, under what power, how it was done, and who was affected. The weakness in a case usually sits in how.
2. Find the perspectives
Write one line for each side. If the State has a justification, the answer usually depends on balancing, not on whether the right exists.
3. Link to the Constitution and precedent
Name the Article first, then the case that supplies the test. In CLAT, apply the principle given in the passage, even if you remember the law differently.
4. Apply and conclude
Run the facts through each limb of the test, and pick the option that fails or passes for the right reason.
Common traps
- Absolute words: "never", "always" and "only" are rarely right in constitutional law.
- Right answer, wrong reason: two options may reach the same result. Choose the one with the correct ground.
- Attacking the limb that passes: if the State's aim is legitimate, the problem is elsewhere.