Law 2021 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Comment

Q5

Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answers with relevant provisions and judicial pronouncements. 10×5=50 (a) Minor's contract is 'void ab initio'. Comment. 10 (b) Discuss the constitutionality of Right to Information Act, 2019 in the light of recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India. 10 (c) In legal phraseology "every person who acts for another is not an agent". Comment. 10 (d) India's 40 years old 'Air Act', 1981, languishes in the present circumstances of Air pollution emergency in Delhi — National Capital Region. Comment on the effectiveness of law in the light of judicial and administrative mechanism. 10 (e) 'With the globalisation of trade, brand names, trade names and trade marks have attained an immense value and therefore it requires an effective trade mark law'. Discuss. 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) अवयस्क के साथ की गई संविदा प्रारंभ से ही शून्य (वॉयड एब इनिशियो) मानी जाती है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। 10 (b) भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय के हाल के निर्णय के आलोक में सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2019 की संवैधानिकता पर चर्चा कीजिए। 10 (c) विधिक पदावली में "प्रत्येक व्यक्ति जो दूसरे के लिए कार्य करता है वह (एजेंट) अभिकर्ता नहीं है"। टिप्पणी कीजिए। 10 (d) दिल्ली — राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में वायु प्रदूषण आपातकाल की वर्तमान परिस्थितियों में भारत का 40 वर्ष पुराना 'वायु अधिनियम', 1981 दम तोड़ रहा है। न्यायिक और प्रशासनिक प्रक्रिया के आलोक में कानून की प्रभावशीलता पर टिप्पणी कीजिए। 10 (e) 'व्यापार के वैश्वीकरण के साथ ब्रांड नामों, व्यापार नामों और व्यापार चिह्नों ने असीम महत्व प्राप्त कर लिया है और इसलिए एक प्रभावी ट्रेडमार्क कानून की आवश्यकता है'। विवेचना कीजिए। 10

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

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' requires a balanced critical appraisal with legal reasoning. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words total), spending roughly equal time on each since all carry 10 marks. Structure each part as: brief legal position → relevant provision/case law → critical analysis → concluding observation. For (a) and (c), focus on contractual doctrines; for (b) and (d), emphasize constitutional and environmental jurisprudence; for (e), highlight IP law evolution.

Key points expected

  • (a) Minor's contract: Section 11 and 10 of Indian Contract Act; Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903); distinction between 'void' and 'void ab initio'; exceptions (necessaries, beneficial contracts)
  • (b) RTI Act 2019 constitutionality: Supreme Court judgment in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2023) or similar recent ruling; Article 19(1)(a) interplay; amendments affecting independence of Information Commissioners
  • (c) Agency distinction: Section 182 ICA definition; Lakshmi Narayan Ram Gopal v. State of Bombay; difference between agent, servant, independent contractor; authority vs. mere representation
  • (d) Air Act 1981 effectiveness: Sections 19-22; MC Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi air pollution cases); EPCA recommendations; GRAP mechanism; critique of penal provisions and enforcement gaps
  • (e) Trademark law globalization: Trade Marks Act 1999; Sections 2(1)(zb), 9, 11; SC decisions like Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (trans-border reputation); TRIPS compliance; passing off vs. infringement

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites ICA Sections 10-11 for (a), 182 for (c); Air Act Sections 19-22 for (d); TM Act 1999 provisions for (e); correctly identifies RTI Act 2019 amendment provisions for (b) with no section numbering errorsMentions relevant statutes but with minor section errors or omits specific sub-sections; broadly correct on Air Act and Contract Act provisionsIncorrect sections cited (e.g., citing IPC instead of ICA); confuses 1981 Air Act with 1986 Environment Act; omits statutory basis entirely
Case-law citation20%10Accurately cites Mohori Bibee (1903) for (a); recent SC judgment on RTI 2019 for (b); Lakshmi Narayan or Anand Bihari for (c); MC Mehta series/Vellore Citizens' for (d); Cadila or Whirlpool for (e) with correct yearsNames landmark cases correctly but without years or with minor inaccuracies; misses recent judgments for (b) and (d)Wrong case citations (e.g., citing Privy Council decisions post-1950 as binding); fabricated case names; omits case law entirely despite directive requiring judicial pronouncements
Doctrinal analysis20%10Critically examines 'void ab initio' vs. 'voidable' distinction in (a); analyzes 'control test' vs. 'authority test' for agency in (c); evaluates polluter pays principle integration in (d); assesses well-known marks doctrine in (e)Describes legal doctrines without critical engagement; states rules without analyzing underlying principles or competing theoriesMerely reproduces definitions without doctrinal depth; confuses fundamental legal concepts (e.g., agency with sale)
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (b), analyzes Article 19/14 violation arguments and separation of powers; for (d), compares with US Clean Air Act or EU standards; for (e), references TRIPS and Madrid Protocol; connects (a) to English law positionBriefly mentions constitutional provisions without analysis; superficial reference to international conventionsNo constitutional or comparative dimension where required; ignores federal structure issues in environmental enforcement
Conclusion & application20%10Each sub-part ends with crisp evaluative conclusion: suggests legislative reform for minor's contracts, recommends independent RTI body strengthening, proposes Air Act amendments with enhanced penalties, advocates for specialized IP tribunalsGeneric conclusions without specific recommendations; merely summarizes points made without forward-looking applicationNo conclusion in any sub-part; abrupt ending; or conclusions completely disconnected from legal analysis presented

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