Free: CLAT PG 2027 online mock test
120 questions, 120 minutes, instant score and explained answers. Free with a Lexfolio account.
These 12 original CLAT PG constitutional law MCQ questions, with answers and one-line explanations, cover the cases and Articles that CLAT PG passages return to: basic structure, Articles 14, 21 and 21A, Article 356, free speech, reservation, judicial review and legislative privilege. Constitutional Law is one of the 13 subjects of CLAT PG 2027 (Sunday, 6 December 2026, 120 questions in 120 minutes), so practise these in 12 minutes, one minute each, and note the judgment behind every answer.
| Point | Position |
|---|---|
| Exam | CLAT 2027 PG, 6 December 2026, 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm; 120 questions, minus 0.25 per wrong answer |
| Constitutional Law in the paper | One of 13 subjects; reported as 3 passages (15 questions) in the paper of 7 December 2025 |
| How CLAT PG asks it | A passage from a judgment, then questions on the issue, related law, summary and application |
| This page | 12 original MCQs, each with the Article and case |
| Suggested time | 12 minutes for all twelve |
How to use these CLAT PG constitutional law MCQs
Real CLAT PG questions arrive after a long extract, so these are shorter and test the knowledge you need inside the passage. Cover the answers, mark your option, then open the answer. For every wrong answer write the Article, the case and the year on one line in a notebook. After two attempts, the notebook is your revision sheet. For passage-style practice, see how to solve CLAT PG passages.
Practise this in exam conditions. Crash Course Part 1 holds high-yield notes on Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Jurisprudence, the three subjects that overlap most. CLAT PG Crash Course Part 1, ₹249. For the cases behind these MCQs, the Landmark Judgments Digest 2026, ₹199 covers 40 recent Supreme Court judgments; or try the free CLAT PG mock test.
CLAT PG practice questions with answers: 12 constitutional law MCQs
Q1. How many judges sat in the Bench that decided Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)?
- Seven
- Nine
- Eleven
- Thirteen
Show answer
Answer: D. A thirteen-judge Bench held, by a narrow majority, that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure (Article 368).
Q2. Which Article, inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, makes free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen a fundamental right?
- Article 21A
- Article 24
- Article 45
- Article 51A(k)
Show answer
Answer: A. Article 21A, to be given effect “as the State may, by law, determine”; the Right to Education Act, 2009 followed. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1993) was the background.
Q3. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 because they:
- Gave courts the power to amend the Constitution
- Removed the limit on Parliament’s amending power, which is part of the basic structure
- Made Directive Principles enforceable
- Abolished the right to property
Show answer
Answer: B. The clauses, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, gave Parliament unlimited power to amend. The Court also stressed the balance between Part III and Part IV.
Q4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) held that the procedure under Article 21 must be:
- Any procedure laid down by a valid statute
- The procedure of the English common law
- Just, fair and reasonable, and so tested against Articles 14 and 19
- Prescribed only by the Constitution
Show answer
Answer: C. The Court read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together; arbitrary procedure is not “procedure established by law”. It moved away from A.K. Gopalan (1950).
Q5. Which decision described arbitrariness as antithetical to equality under Article 14?
- State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
- Indra Sawhney (1992)
Show answer
Answer: B. In Royappa, Justice Bhagwati’s formulation made arbitrariness a separate ground of attack under Article 14. Shayara Bano (2017) later applied “manifest arbitrariness” to a statute.
Q6. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that a proclamation under Article 356:
- Is beyond judicial review
- Needs no approval by Parliament
- Can be tested only by the Governor’s report
- Is subject to judicial review, and a Ministry’s majority is to be tested on the floor of the House
Show answer
Answer: D. The Court made the use of Article 356 justiciable and said that majority is tested on the floor of the House, not by the Governor’s assessment. Parliamentary approval is required under Article 356(3).
Q7. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24 March 2015), section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down because it:
- Violated Article 19(1)(a) and was not saved by Article 19(2)
- Violated Article 20(3)
- Was beyond the Union’s legislative competence
- Violated Article 25
Show answer
Answer: A. Its terms were vague and overbroad, so it chilled speech beyond the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2).
Q8. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court said reservations under Article 16(4) should ordinarily not exceed:
- 33%
- 40%
- 50%
- 60%
Show answer
Answer: C. The nine-judge Bench fixed the 50% ceiling, allowed exceptions in extraordinary situations, and required exclusion of the creamy layer among OBCs. In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (7 November 2022) the 103rd Amendment’s EWS quota was upheld by 3 to 2.
Q9. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held that decisions of administrative tribunals are:
- Final and not reviewable
- Appealable directly to the Supreme Court only
- Reviewable only by Parliament
- Subject to scrutiny by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227
Show answer
Answer: D. Judicial review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court (Articles 226, 227 and 32) is part of the basic structure; tribunals work as courts of first instance in their areas.
Q10. In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), which part of the Tenth Schedule was held invalid?
- Paragraph 2, disqualification for defection
- Paragraph 7, which barred court jurisdiction
- Paragraph 4, merger
- The whole Schedule
Show answer
Answer: B. Paragraph 7 needed ratification by States under Article 368(2) and had not got it. The rest stood, and the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review.
Q11. In Sita Soren v. Union of India (4 March 2024), a seven-judge Bench held that parliamentary privilege under Articles 105(2) and 194(2):
- Protects a legislator who takes a bribe to vote
- Protects only votes, not speeches
- Does not protect a legislator charged with bribery in connection with a vote or speech
- Applies only to the Rajya Sabha
Show answer
Answer: C. The Court overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998). Bribery is not protected, because the offence is complete on taking the bribe, whether or not the vote is cast.
Q12. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (16 October 2015), the Court struck down:
- The 99th Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
- Article 124(2)
- The collegium system
- Article 217
Show answer
Answer: A. By 4 to 1, the Bench held the NJAC regime violated judicial independence, part of the basic structure. The collegium system of the Second Judges Case (1993) continued.
What to learn next
If you missed more than three, go back to the Articles first, then the cases. Group your notes by theme: amendment power (Kesavananda, Minerva Mills), equality and liberty (Royappa, Maneka Gandhi), federalism (Bommai), speech and reservation (Shreya Singhal, Indra Sawhney) and institutions (L. Chandra Kumar, Kihoto, NJAC). The list in our Constitutional Law important topics guide and the important Supreme Court judgments guide shows what else to add.
Frequently asked questions
Where can I find CLAT PG constitutional law MCQ practice with answers?
This page gives 12 original questions with answers and explanations. For passage-style practice, use the free CLAT PG mock test on Lexfolio and the Consortium’s previous years’ papers, which you can buy for ₹500 with the CLAT application.
How many constitutional law questions come in CLAT PG?
The Consortium does not publish a fixed number. One published analysis of the paper of 7 December 2025 counted three Constitutional Law passages, or 15 of 120 questions. Treat it as indicative and prepare the whole subject.
Are CLAT PG questions based on judgments?
Yes. The Consortium’s PG syllabus says passages are extracts from primary legal sources such as important court decisions, and questions test the issue, related law, summary and application.
Which Constitution topics matter most for CLAT PG?
Fundamental rights (Articles 14, 19, 21), the basic structure doctrine, federalism and Article 356, judicial review, and the Directive Principles are core. Leading cases matter more than memorised Article text.
Sources
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16(4), 19, 21, 21A, 32, 105, 194, 226, 227, 356, 368; Tenth Schedule
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973); Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980); Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974); S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994); Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992); Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015); L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997); Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
- Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024); Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)
- Consortium of NLUs, CLAT 2027 PG syllabus
This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case. Law as on 29 October 2026.
Useful books for this topic
- CLAT PG guide books
- Constitutional law (M.P. Jain / V.N. Shukla)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bare act
- Jurisprudence textbooks
As an Amazon Associate, Lexfolio earns from qualifying purchases. Prices and availability are shown on Amazon.
Leave a Reply