Law 2021 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q4

(a) Discuss the evolution and development of rule relating to 'No-fault liability' in India with help of decided cases. 20 (b) What are the defences available to an accused in a civil suit for 'defamation' ? Explain. 15 (c) Recently there have been changes in Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Enumerate. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विविधित मामलों (डिसाइडेड केसेस) की मदद से भारत में, 'नो-फॉल्ट लायबिलिटी' से संबंधित नियम के उद्भव एवं विकास पर चर्चा कीजिए। 20 (b) एक अभियुक्त को 'मानहानि' के लिए सिविल वाद में कौन से प्रतिवाद उपलब्ध होते हैं ? व्याख्या कीजिए। 15 (c) हाल ही में अनुसूचित जाति और अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम, 1989 में परिवर्तन हुए हैं। निरूपण कीजिए। 15

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' for part (a) requires a critical examination of the evolution of no-fault liability with historical progression and case law. Structure: Introduction defining strict liability vs. absolute liability → Part (a): Rylands v Fletcher (1868), M.C. Mehta (1987) establishing absolute liability, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996) → Part (b): Eight defences under Sections 499-502 IPC with illustrations → Part (c): 2018 Amendment Act provisions including Section 18A, anticipatory bail restrictions, Section 4(2)(a) changes → Conclusion synthesizing how these doctrines balance individual rights and social protection. Allocate approximately 40% time/words to part (a) given 20 marks, 30% each to parts (b) and (c).

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Evolution from Rylands v Fletcher (1868) rule of strict liability to M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) establishing absolute liability rule in India, rejecting exceptions
  • Part (a): Post-Oleum gas leak jurisprudence including Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996) on polluter pays principle and compensation mechanisms
  • Part (b): Eight statutory defences under Section 499 IPC Second Exception: truth for public good, fair comment, privilege (absolute and qualified), fair report of judicial/legislative proceedings, caution in good faith
  • Part (b): Distinction between civil and criminal defamation defences; relevance of Sections 499-502 IPC read with Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions
  • Part (c): 2018 Amendment Act changes: Section 18A (preliminary enquiry before FIR), Section 4(2)(a) (anticipatory bail bar), Section 4(2)(b) (cognizance by Special Court), Section 15A (victim/witness protection)
  • Part (c): 2018 Amendment's reversal of Supreme Court's Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018) judgment; 2023 Supreme Court upholding amendments in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Sections 499-502 IPC for defamation defences; correctly identifies Sections 3, 4, 15A, 18A of SC/ST Act 1989 as amended in 2018; accurately references Article 32/226 for PIL jurisdiction in environmental casesGenerally identifies correct statutes but confuses 2015 and 2018 amendments; mentions defences without specific IPC sections; vague on special court jurisdictionMisstates sections (e.g., cites Section 300 IPC for defamation); confuses SC/ST Act with Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955; omits key amendment provisions
Case-law citation20%10For (a): M.C. Mehta (1987) absolute liability, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996), Deepak Nitrite (2004); For (b): R. Rajagopal (1994) on privacy-public interest; For (c): Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018), Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2023) upholding amendmentsMentions M.C. Mehta but misses 1987 vs. 1988 distinction; cites general defamation cases without specific defence illustrations; knows 2018 amendment but misses Supreme Court validation in 2023Cites irrelevant cases (e.g., Donoghue v Stevenson for no-fault liability); no post-2018 SC/ST Act jurisprudence; confuses civil and criminal defamation precedents
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Explains shift from fault-based to risk-based liability, enterprise liability theory, polluter pays principle; For (b): Analyses truth vs. public good distinction, malice in qualified privilege; For (c): Critiques anticipatory bail exclusion balancing Article 21 protectionsDescribes liability rules descriptively without theoretical depth; lists defences without analysing 'public good' requirement; states amendments without constitutional tension analysisConflates strict and absolute liability; treats defences as absolute without exceptions; purely descriptive on amendments without 2018 reversal context
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Contrasts Indian absolute liability with EU environmental liability directives; For (b): Examines defamation decriminalisation debate, Article 19(1)(a) vs. 19(2), global trends (UK Defamation Act 2013); For (c): Analyses Article 14/21 concerns in anticipatory bail exclusion, compares with UAPA/MCOCA precedentsMentions Article 19(2) for defamation; vague on comparative environmental law; notes Article 21 for SC/ST victims without structural analysisNo constitutional dimensions; misses Article 32/226 role in environmental PIL; no awareness of decriminalisation debates or comparative criminal procedure
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesises how no-fault liability, defamation defences, and SC/ST Act amendments collectively reflect Indian law's balancing of individual rights with collective protection; suggests Bhopal Gas tragedy compensation as absolute liability application; evaluates 2018 amendments' effectiveness in atrocity preventionSummarises each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on social justice; no contemporary application or evaluationNo conclusion or abrupt ending; repetitive summary without synthesis; irrelevant personal opinions without legal grounding

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