Law 2021 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant provisions and judicial pronouncements. 10×5=50 (a) What amounts to 'Legal Insanity' that would entitle an accused for exemption from Criminal Liability ? 10 (b) Discuss 'Grave and Sudden Provocation' as a defence to charge of murder under IPC, 1860 ? 10 (c) Explain the concept of Plea-bargaining under the Cr.P.C. 1973. In what cases Plea-bargaining is not available ? 10 (d) Discuss the ambit & scope of 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 10 (e) What constitutes 'Malicious Prosecution' ? How it is different from 'False Imprisonment' ? 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए । प्रासंगिक प्रावधानों तथा न्यायिक निर्णयों को अपने उत्तर के समर्थन में दीजिए । 10×5=50 (a) 'विधि के अनुसार पागलपन' का क्या मतलब है जो एक आरोपी को आपराधिक दायित्व से छूट का हकदार बनाता है ? 10 (b) आई.पी.सी. 1860 के तहत हत्या के आरोप के बचाव के रूप में 'गंभीर और अचानक प्रकोपन' पर चर्चा कीजिए । 10 (c) सी.आर.पी.सी. 1973 के तहत अभिव्यक्त सौदेबाजी (प्ली बारगेनिंग) की अवधारणा को स्पष्ट कीजिए । किन मामलों में प्ली बारगेनिंग उपलब्ध नहीं है ? 10 (d) उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम, 2019 के तहत परिभाषित, 'उपभोक्ता' के दायरे और गुंजाइश (एम्बिट एंड स्कोप) पर चर्चा करें । 10 (e) 'द्वेषपूर्ण अभियोजन' का गठन किस प्रकार होता है ? यह 'मिथ्या कारावास' से कैसे अलग है ? 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Law questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' requires analytical exposition with legal reasoning across all five sub-parts. Allocate approximately 30 words (20% time) per sub-part given equal 10-mark weighting. Structure each part as: legal provision → judicial interpretation → application. For (a) and (b), focus on IPC sections and landmark criminal law precedents; for (c), emphasize Cr.P.C. 2005 amendments; for (d), contrast 2019 Act with 1986 Act; for (e), distinguish tortious remedies with comparative case law.

Key points expected

  • (a) Section 84 IPC: unsoundness of mind destroying cognitive/conative capacity; McNaghten Rules applicability; Lakshmi v. State (1983) or Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand on legal vs. medical insanity distinction
  • (b) Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC: grave and sudden provocation causing loss of self-control; K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) on 'reasonable man' test; limitations (self-induced provocation, cooling time)
  • (c) Chapter XXIA Sections 265A-265L Cr.P.C. (inserted 2005): mutually satisfactory disposition; exclusions—offences against women/children, S.302, 376, 396, 498A, 406, 377, 326, 307, 364, 365, 384-389, 400, 420, 467-471, 498A IPC and socio-economic offences
  • (d) Section 2(7) Consumer Protection Act 2019: expanded definition including e-commerce, tele-shopping, gratuitous service beneficiaries; 'commercial purpose' exclusion narrowed; National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission jurisprudence on 'hirer' vs. 'purchaser'
  • (e) Malicious prosecution: prosecution without reasonable and probable cause, malice, termination in favour of accused, damage—Khagendra Nath v. Jacob Chandra (1951); distinction from false imprisonment: latter is direct restraint without legal process, actionable per se, no malice requirement

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Section 84 IPC, Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, Sections 265A-265L Cr.P.C., Section 2(7) CPA 2019, and tort elements with correct sub-sections; no conflation of 1973 and 2005 Cr.P.C. provisionsIdentifies correct statutes but misses specific sections or confuses 1986 and 2019 CPA definitions; minor errors in Cr.P.C. chapter referencesWrong provisions cited (e.g., Section 85 for insanity, Section 299 for provocation) or omits statutory basis entirely; confuses plea-bargaining with compounding of offences
Case-law citation20%10Cites Nanavati for provocation, Lakshmi/Surendra Mishra for insanity, Khagendra Nath for malicious prosecution, and recent NCDRC decisions on consumer definition; mentions factual matrices where relevantNames landmark cases correctly but without facts or legal principles; misses recent jurisprudence on CPA 2019No case law cited or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., Ratan Singh for insanity which is actually on dying declaration); confuses malicious prosecution with defamation precedents
Doctrinal analysis20%10Explains M'Naghten cognitive test vs. irresistible impulse; 'reasonable man' standard in provocation; retributive vs. restorative justice rationale for plea-bargaining; strict liability vs. fault-based tort distinctionDescribes legal tests superficially without explaining underlying jurisprudence; states elements without connecting to policyMerely reproduces statutory language without analysis; conflates legal insanity with medical insanity; no understanding of why certain offences are excluded from plea-bargaining
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Notes Article 21 implications of plea-bargaining (State of Gujarat v. Afzal Memon); compares Indian insanity standard with Durham Rule (USA); contrasts English 'reasonable relationship' test for provocation; mentions Directive Principles relevance to consumer protectionBrief mention of constitutional validity without elaboration; superficial comparison with foreign lawNo constitutional or comparative perspective; ignores human rights dimensions of criminal defences and consumer rights
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes across parts: notes how defences balance individual autonomy and social protection; suggests legislative reforms (e.g., expanding insanity defence, plea-bargaining for compoundable offences); applies distinction between malicious prosecution and false imprisonment to hypothetical scenariosSummarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on importance of lawNo conclusion or abrupt ending; fails to distinguish the two torts in part (e); leaves plea-bargaining exclusions incomplete

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Law 2021 Paper II