CLAT · Legal Reasoning

Eight moves examiners test, over and over

Every Legal Reasoning passage eventually asks you to do one of these eight things with a rule. Pick one, read a real passage, and see exactly how the correct answer follows.

Pick a skill

Apply the rule to new facts from our question bank: principle_application

This is the most common Legal Reasoning move: hold the stated rule fixed, plug in the facts you're given, and see where they land -- no outside legal knowledge required.

Common trap — Importing a requirement the passage never mentioned, or letting one stage of a multi-stage rule swallow the other.

Passage

Equal Justice and the Two Stages of Legal-Aid Entitlement

Article 39A of the Constitution directs the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. It particularly calls for free legal aid, through legislation, schemes, or other means, so that economic or other disabilities do not deny any citizen an opportunity to secure justice. This idea treats access to justice as more than the formal existence of courts: a legal right may have little practical value when a person cannot obtain advice or representation needed to enforce it.

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gives institutional form to this objective. Under the Act, “legal services” is not confined to appointing an advocate for a trial. It includes assistance in conducting a case or other legal proceeding before a court, tribunal, or authority, as well as advice on a legal matter. Official guidance also describes services such as preparation of pleadings, payment of appropriate process fees and other case-related expenses, and assistance at different stages of proceedings.

Section 12 identifies several alternative grounds of eligibility. They include membership of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; being a victim of human trafficking or begar; being a woman or child; being a person with disability; suffering undeserved want arising from circumstances such as a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake, or industrial disaster; being an industrial workman; being in specified forms of custody; or having income below the applicable limit. Because these are alternative grounds, an applicant who satisfies one listed category need not also prove low income. Thus, for example, a woman may qualify by virtue of that category irrespective of her financial status.

Category eligibility, however, does not by itself decide every application. Section 13 provides that a person satisfying any Section 12 criterion is entitled to legal services if the concerned authority is satisfied that the person has a prima facie case to prosecute or defend. A prima facie assessment asks whether the case has an apparent legal basis at the initial stage; it is not a final prediction that the applicant will win. Accordingly, the statutory scheme combines broad access for specified groups with a preliminary assessment of the proposed case. It would be wrong both to invent an additional income requirement for every category and to treat category membership as a guarantee of assistance for a claim having no apparent legal basis.

Question

Meera, a financially independent woman, seeks legal representation in a civil dispute. The authority rejects her application solely because her income exceeds the generally applicable income limit. On the passage's account, which conclusion is most accurate?

A The rejection is correct because every applicant must satisfy the income criterion.

B The rejection applies an impermissible additional condition because Meera may qualify as a woman irrespective of income, though her case may still undergo a prima facie assessment. Correct

C The rejection is incorrect because every woman must receive legal aid without any examination of her proposed case.

D The rejection is correct unless Meera also proves that she is an industrial workman.

How the correct answer follows

Separate the two stages the passage sets up: Section 12 eligibility (categorical, alternative grounds) and Section 13's prima facie assessment (case-specific).
Meera qualifies under Section 12 as a woman, irrespective of income, because the passage says the grounds are alternatives, not cumulative.
That only clears stage one. Section 13 still permits a prima facie review of her case -- categorical eligibility isn't a blank cheque.
Option B is the only one that keeps both stages alive: the income-only rejection was wrong, but a prima facie review can still follow.

Click any card above to switch skills — the passage, question and walkthrough update in place.

Try these skills under test conditions in the CLAT diagnostic →