Law 2021 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Q6

(a) What are the various modes in which a contract may be discharged ? Explain in the light of decided cases. 20 (b) Dwell on the legality and constitutionality of Section 66A, Information Technology Act, 2000. 15 (c) Write short notes on the following : 5×3=15 (i) Caveat Emptor (ii) Uberrima fides (iii) Nemo dat quod non habet

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विभिन्न तरीके क्या हैं जिनमें एक अनुबंध का निर्वहन किया जा सकता है ? निर्णीत मामलों के आलोक में व्याख्या करें । 20 (b) सेक्शन 66A सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी अधिनियम, 2000 की वैधता और संवैधानिकता पर विस्तारपूर्वक लिखिए । 15 (c) निम्नलिखित पर संक्षिप्ट टिप्पणी लिखिए : 5×3=15 (i) केविएट एम्पटर (ii) युबेरिमा फाइड्स (iii) नेमो डैट क्वोड नॉन हैबेट

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

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' in part (a) demands comprehensive exposition with case illustrations, while part (b) requires critical constitutional analysis and part (c) needs concise doctrinal summaries. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% to part (b) for constitutional depth, and 30% to part (c) distributing 10% each across the three short notes. Structure with clear sub-headings for each part, begin with definitions, develop through case law and analysis, and conclude with contemporary relevance or synthesis.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Five modes of discharge—performance (S.37-38 ICA), mutual consent (S.62-63), impossibility/frustration (S.56, Krell v Henry; Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram), breach (anticipatory and actual, Hochster v De La Tour), and operation of law (limitation, insolvency, merger)
  • Part (a): Leading Indian cases—Satyabrata Ghose (frustration theory), Naihati Jute Mills (self-induced impossibility), Alopi Parshad (tender of performance), and English precedents like Taylor v Caldwell (impossibility doctrine)
  • Part (b): Section 66A IT Act provisions—punishment for offensive messages, constitutional challenge in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), Supreme Court's 'chilling effect' on Article 19(1)(a), vagueness doctrine, and severability
  • Part (b): Comparative constitutional standards—Brandenburg test (US), necessity and proportionality analysis, post-66A developments like Section 153A/295A IPC applications to online speech
  • Part (c)(i): Caveat Emptor—S.16 Sale of Goods Act, exceptions (S.15-17), case law like Ward v Hobbs (latent defects), modern consumer protection shift
  • Part (c)(ii): Uberrima fides—utmost good faith in insurance contracts, duty of disclosure, Carter v Boehm, LIC v Consumer Education & Research Centre
  • Part (c)(iii): Nemo dat quod non habet—S.27-30 Sale of Goods Act, exceptions (estoppel, market overt, mercantile agent), Cahn v Pockett's Bristol Channel Steam Packet Co

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of S.37-38, 56, 62-63 ICA for (a); exact wording of S.66A and S.153A/295A IPC for (b); accurate S.16, 27-30 Sale of Goods Act and Insurance Act provisions for (c); no section number errorsGenerally correct sections but some mixing (e.g., S.56 with S.62) or missing sub-sections; broad awareness of 66A being struck down but imprecise on Shreya Singhal paragraphs; correct doctrines but wrong section numbers for sale of goodsMajor section errors (confusing discharge with termination), missing S.66A entirely or confusing with S.66/67 IT Act, no statutory basis for (c) doctrines, invented provisions
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Satyabrata Ghose, Naihati Jute Mills, Alopi Parshad, Krell v Henry, Taylor v Caldwell with correct facts/ratio; for (b): Shreya Singhal (2015) 5 SCC 1 with specific paragraphs on Article 19(2) mapping; for (c): Carter v Boehm, LIC v CERC, Ward v Hobbs, Cahn v Pockett with factual contextsCorrect case names but incomplete facts or wrong legal propositions; Shreya Singhal cited without specific grounds; generic mention of 'Supreme Court struck down' without reasoning; missing foreign precedents in (a)Invented cases, confused benches (e.g., citing Kesavananda for 66A), wrong jurisdiction cases, no case law in (a) despite explicit demand, irrelevant cases like Vishaka guidelines
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Clear distinction between frustration and breach, self-induced vs. genuine impossibility, theoretical basis in Paradine v Jane vs. Taylor v Caldwell evolution; for (b): 'Chilling effect' doctrine, overbreadth doctrine, Article 19(2) eight restrictions mapping; for (c): Historical evolution from caveat emptor to caveat venditor, insurance contract特殊性Lists modes without theoretical depth; describes 66A judgment without doctrinal tools; states doctrines for (c) without historical context or modern modifications; conflates similar conceptsNo doctrinal framework, purely descriptive lists, confuses discharge with rescission/void ab initio, treats 66A as still valid law, doctrinal definitions without application
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (b): Explicit comparison with US First Amendment (Brandenburg, Schenck), European Convention Article 10, German 'militant democracy'; necessity-proportionality test from Puttaswamy applied; for (a): English vs. Indian position on frustration (S.56 vs. common law development); for (c): Consumer Protection Act 2019 shift from caveat emptorMentions 'freedom of speech' without constitutional structure; no comparative dimension; aware 66A unconstitutional but no Article 19(1)(a) vs. 19(2) analysis; misses consumer law evolution in (c)(i)No constitutional analysis in (b), treats as criminal law question only; no comparative awareness; fundamental rights not mentioned; purely contract law technical approach ignoring constitutional dimensions
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes: for (a)—COVID-19 as contemporary frustration instance; for (b)—ongoing Section 153A misuse as 66A substitute, need for specific speech legislation; for (c)—balance between party autonomy and consumer/investor protection; clear sub-part conclusions with forward-looking recommendationsSeparate conclusions for each part without synthesis; generic restatement of points; no contemporary application; abrupt endings without policy recommendationNo conclusion section, missing (b) or (c) entirely, conclusion contradicts body, no application to current legal developments, purely academic without practical relevance

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