[Political] Parties compete for control of Parliament because they want their values, their ideology, and their programme to be reflected in the law of the land. No-one doubts that the Commons stage is the most important, and the reason surely is that the House of Commons is the institution most subject to popular control. If laws passed by one Parliament turn out to be unpopular, the electorate can install a majority that is sworn to repeal them. That is what elections and representative politics are all about. On this model, it is simply fatuous to pretend that law is somehow ‘above’ politics. Maybe there are some laws on which everyone agrees, no matter what their ideology. Everyone agrees there should be a law against murder, for example, and that there should be basic rules of the road. But as soon as we turn to the fine print, it is surprisingly difficult to find a consensus on the detail of any legislative provision. And in many cases, even the fundamental principles are the subject of fierce political dispute. What this model stresses, then, is that legislative attitudes are necessarily partisan attitudes. So long as there is tight party discipline in Parliament, legislative decisions will be taken on the basis of the ideology of the leadership of the party in power. The partisan model stresses the legitimacy of these attitudes and this form of decision-making.
By contrast, what I call ‘the neutral model’ enjoins a certain respect for law and law-making which goes beyond purely partisan views. According to this model there is something special about law, and it carries with it special non-partisan responsibilities. Proponents of the neutral model do not deny that laws are made by party politicians, and that legislation is often motivated by disputed values and ideologies. Their view is that when a law is being made, something solemn is being decided in Parliament in the name of the whole society. Though it is reasonable for bills to be proposed and debated along partisan lines, the decision procedures of Parliament are designed to indicate not merely which is the stronger party, but what is to be the view of society as a whole on some matter for the time being. The result, the outcome, is a decision of the House as a whole: it is, literally, an act of Parliament, not merely an act of the Conservative party or an act of the Labour party, whichever commands the majority. By virtue of the parliamentary process, it transcends partisan politics, and presents itself as a norm enacted for and on behalf of the entire community.
On the neutral model, the social function idea tends to receive more emphasis than the political prevalence. For this reason, the neutral model often focuses on aspects of the legal system that do not involve explicitly partisan initiatives. It focuses on those areas of law where there is something approaching unanimity (such as the fundamental principles of the criminal law and some of the basic tenets of private law). And it focuses particularly on ‘the common law’. When common law doctrine strikes out in new directions, the change is usually presented as the product of reasoning which is independent of politics, as though there were an evolving ‘logic’ of the law which could proceed untainted by partisan values or ideology.
[Excerpted, with edits, from The Law, by Jeremy Waldron, Routledge, Oxon, 1990.]
Partyland’s political scenario involves frequent reversal of previous ruling party’s laws whenever a new party gains majority. Which model of law would Waldron most likely see this as?
Show Hint
- Partyland is not an actual democracy
- The situation is an illustration of the neutral model of law
- The situation is an illustration of the partisan model of law
- Partyland is not an actual republic
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Recall Waldron’s definition of partisan model.
Under the partisan model, legislation reflects the ideology of the party in power, and when the majority changes, laws are often repealed or replaced to match the new party’s ideology.
Step 2: Apply to facts.
In Partyland, after each election, the ruling party reverses the previous party’s policies and enacts its own — a direct sign of the partisan model.
Step 3: Eliminate wrong options.
(B) is wrong — the neutral model stresses laws being respected beyond partisan politics, which is not happening here.
(A) and (D) are irrelevant to the question; Partyland can still be democratic/republican despite partisan legislation. \[ \boxed{\text{(C)}} \]
After a second term, the Public Party in Partyland removes judicial discretion, requiring judges to apply laws strictly as codified. Which model of law do these changes align with?
Show Hint
- The neutral model of law
- The partisan model of law
- Equally with both, the neutral and partisan model of law
- With neither the neutral nor the partisan model of law
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding judicial role under models.
Neutral model supports law being respected beyond party lines. Partisan model sees law as expression of ruling party ideology.
Step 2: Apply to facts.
Here, laws are changed drastically by the ruling party, and judges are required to apply them strictly without discretion — entrenching the party’s ideology in legal application.
Step 3: Eliminate wrong options.
(A) is wrong — no neutrality here, since the purpose is partisan control.
(C) is wrong — both models are not equally reflected.
(D) is wrong — it matches the partisan model. \[ \boxed{\text{(B)}} \]
Public Party enacts a “workers’ tax” law, but the Worker’s Party in one state refuses to implement it. Which model of law does this refusal align with?
Show Hint
- The partisan model of law
- The neutral model of law
- Equally with both the neutral and partisan model of law
- With neither the neutral nor the partisan model of law
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding refusal in context.
Under the neutral model, laws once enacted should be respected by all levels of government as representing society as a whole.
Step 2: Apply to facts.
The Worker’s Party refuses to implement the law because it disagrees ideologically — this is partisan behaviour, rejecting a law based on political stance rather than neutral respect for legislation.
Step 3: Eliminate wrong options.
(B) is wrong — the neutral model demands compliance regardless of party.
(C) is wrong — the action is entirely partisan.
(D) is wrong — it fits the partisan model clearly. \[ \boxed{\text{(A)}} \]
Based on the passage, which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the Basic Structure doctrine in Indian Constitutional law?
Show Hint
- As it places limits on the amending power of Parliament, it is closer to the partisan rather than the neutral model of law.
- As it emerged from a series of judicial decisions rather than legislation, it is a product of partisan rather than neutral law-making.
- It does not reflect any of the attributes of either the neutral or partisan model of law.
- As it places limits on the amending power of Parliament, it is closer to the neutral rather than the partisan model of law.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the Basic Structure doctrine.
The doctrine ensures that even the Parliament cannot alter certain fundamental features of the Constitution, thereby protecting non-partisan constitutional values.
Step 2: Linking to models.
This aligns with the neutral model, which emphasizes law-making for the entire community rather than advancing party ideology.
Step 3: Elimination.
(A) is incorrect — it is not partisan in nature.
(B) is incorrect — judicial origin does not make it partisan.
(C) is incorrect — it clearly matches neutral model principles. \[ \boxed{\text{(D)}} \]
Based on the passage, which of the following is Waldron most likely to agree with?
Show Hint
- Legislators always make laws based on their party’s ideology, rather than any non-partisan interests
- Legislators make laws based on non-partisan considerations
- Laws are made on the basis of the needs and demands of society from time to time
- Law and law-making can be understood using the partisan or the neutral model
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Recalling Waldron’s framework.
The passage outlines two distinct models: partisan and neutral, as lenses to interpret law-making.
Step 2: Linking to question.
Waldron acknowledges both models and uses them to understand different legislative behaviours.
Step 3: Eliminating other options.
(A) is too absolute — not “always.”
(B) and (C) do not match his balanced model-based view. \[ \boxed{\text{(D)}} \]
Which of the following most strongly supports the neutral model of law and law-making?
Show Hint
- Once enacted, legislation is regarded as an act of Parliament as a whole, rather than any political party
- Party whips ensure members vote in line with party ideology
- Social welfare laws are enacted for the benefit of weaker sections of society
- Elections to legislatures are hotly contested
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Neutral model principle.
Neutral model views laws as acts for the entire society, transcending party politics.
Step 2: Apply to facts.
Option (A) directly captures this essence — once a law is enacted, it belongs to the whole Parliament, not just the ruling party.
Step 3: Elimination.
(B) is clearly partisan.
(C) may be bipartisan, but not inherently neutral in Waldron’s sense.
(D) is about elections, not law-making philosophy. \[ \boxed{\text{(A)}} \]
Which statement is a proponent of the neutral model of law-making most likely to agree with?
Show Hint
- Democracy is desirable, and increased voter turnout proves law-making is non-partisan
- Legislators should represent their constituents’ interests and vote only for their party’s promised laws
- Child pornography is heinous, and bipartisan political votes for strong punishments show law-making is non-partisan
- Judges are not elected and should not have law-making powers through legislation or case law
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Recall neutral model’s focus.
Neutral model applies where there is broad consensus on legislation beyond party ideology.
Step 2: Apply to facts.
Option (C) describes a law supported across parties due to shared societal values — a clear example of non-partisan law-making.
Step 3: Elimination.
(A) voter turnout does not necessarily indicate non-partisan law-making.
(B) is partisan.
(D) is about judicial role, not legislative neutrality. \[ \boxed{\text{(C)}} \]
Which of the following arguments most strongly supports the partisan model of law-making?
Show Hint
- Calling a legislation an act of Parliament rather than the act of a political party shows that it is the view of society as a whole on some matter, and thus deserving of respect by members of all political parties
- Merely calling a legislation an act of Parliament does not take away from the fact that it is partisan, since it was introduced by a political party, and voted for by its members on the party’s directions, in furtherance of the party’s ideological agenda.
- Calling a legislation an act of Parliament indicates that politicians have the liberty to vote for or against legislation on the basis of their idea of the rule of law, rather than on the basis of their party’s ideological agenda.
- The mere act of calling a legislation an act of Parliament shows that it is the result of the collective effort of legislators from different political parties, and therefore, non-partisan in nature.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the partisan model.
Partisan model sees legislation as an expression of a party’s ideology and political goals.
Step 2: Matching to options.
(B) clearly points out that legislation’s partisan nature remains despite the label “act of Parliament,” as it reflects the ruling party’s ideological agenda. Step 3: Elimination.
(A), (C), and (D) all convey neutrality or collective agreement, aligning more with the neutral model. \[ \boxed{\text{(B)}} \]
General elections are held again in Partyland, and the Public Party wins power again. It introduces a law allowing legislators to vote against their party whip without being disqualified. Which model of law does this align with?
Show Hint
- The neutral model of law
- The partisan model of law
- Equally with both, the neutral and the partisan model of law
- With neither the neutral nor the partisan model of law
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Linking facts to the models.
Allowing legislators to vote freely without party whip enforcement reduces partisan control, enabling decisions based on conscience or societal interest.
Step 2: Model match.
This reflects the neutral model’s emphasis on transcending party lines for the sake of collective decision-making.
Step 3: Elimination.
(B) is incorrect — the law reduces, not strengthens, partisanship.
(C) is incorrect — it doesn’t equally reflect both models.
(D) is incorrect — it clearly matches the neutral model. \[ \boxed{\text{(A)}} \]
Which statement, if true, would most weaken the neutral model of law’s arguments about common law?
Show Hint
- Common law doctrine evolves over time, and in some instances may take much longer to evolve than the passage of a legislation.
- Common law doctrine only evolves based on a form of reasoning specific to the law and is not affected by the personal values or ideologies of judges.
- The evolution of common law doctrine proceeds in a purely logical manner and is not affected by any partisan values or ideology.
- The evolution of common law doctrine is directed by the partisan interests of judges and is not divorced from political values or ideology.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Neutral model’s stance on common law.
Neutral model treats common law as evolving in a non-partisan, logic-based way, free from political bias.
Step 2: Weakening this view.
If common law is actually driven by judges’ partisan interests, it undermines the neutral model’s claim of political independence.
Step 3: Elimination.
(A) talks about speed of change — irrelevant to neutrality.
(B) and (C) actually support the neutral model, not weaken it. \[ \boxed{\text{(D)}} \]
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts