Law 2022 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q1

Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answers with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements : 10×5=50 (a) "The existence of mens rea along with commission of actus reus makes the act an offence." Explain. (10 marks) (b) What are the remedies available under the Law of Tort other than damages? Discuss by citing suitable illustrations. (10 marks) (c) Analyze the effectiveness of Sections 326-A and 326-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. What additional suggestions have been made by the Supreme Court of India in Laxmi vs. Union of India Case in 2015 ? (10 marks) (d) How far has Section 7-A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 been effective to control untouchability in India? (10 marks) (e) The Right of Private Defence is based on the cardinal principle that it is the primary duty of man to help himself, but this right is not absolute. Explain. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिये। आपका उत्तर सुसंगत विधिक प्रावधानों और न्यायिक निर्णयों से समर्थित कीजिये : 10×5=50 (क) "ऐक्टस रियस के साथ मेन्स रिया की उपस्थिति कृत्य को अपराध बनाती है।" व्याख्या कीजिये। (10 अंक) (ख) अपकृत्य विधि के अन्तर्गत प्रतिकर के अलावा कौन-से उपचार उपलब्ध हैं? उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के उद्धरण देते हुए विवेचन कीजिये। (10 अंक) (ग) भारतीय दण्ड संहिता, 1860 की धाराएँ 326-A और 326-B की प्रभावशीलता का विश्लेषण कीजिये। लक्ष्मी बनाम भारत संघ के मामले, 2015 में भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने क्या अतिरिक्त सुझाव दिये हैं? (10 अंक) (घ) भारत में अस्पृश्यता नियंत्रण में सिविल अधिकार संरक्षण अधिनियम, 1955 की धारा 7-A कहाँ तक प्रभावी है? (10 अंक) (ङ) प्राइवेट प्रतिरक्षा का अधिकार इस आधारभूत सिद्धांत पर आधारित है कि स्वयं की सहायता मनुष्य का प्राथमिक कर्तव्य है, किन्तु यह अधिकार निर्बाध (पूर्ण) नहीं है। समझाइये। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 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' demands clear exposition of legal principles with reasoning. Structure: brief definitional opening for each sub-part, followed by provision/case-law substantiation, and a concluding synthesis. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words total), spending roughly equal time on each since all carry 10 marks. For (a), focus on the concurrence principle; for (b), enumerate tort remedies with illustrations; for (c), analyze acid attack provisions then cite Laxmi case suggestions; for (d), evaluate Section 7-A PCRA effectiveness; for (e), balance private defence scope with limitations.

Key points expected

  • (a) Mens rea and actus reus concurrence: Cite R v. Prince (1875) and State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965) on strict liability exceptions; mention Section 304-A IPC as illustration of negligence without mens rea
  • (b) Tort remedies beyond damages: Injunction (perpetual/mandatory—Mareva injunction), specific restitution, declaratory relief, self-help (abatement of nuisance); illustrate with Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia on injunction
  • (c) Sections 326-A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid) and 326-B (attempt): 10-year minimum punishment effectiveness; Laxmi (2015) suggestions—free treatment, compensation, sale regulation, rehabilitation, fast-track courts
  • (d) Section 7-A PCRA 1955: Punishment for compelling untouchability; limited effectiveness due to low conviction rates, social enforcement gaps; contrast with Article 17 constitutional abolition
  • (e) Right of Private Defence: Sections 96-106 IPC, 'necessity' and 'proportionality' limits; cite R v. Clegg (excessive force) and Indian cases—Yogendra Moraji v. State of Gujarat on reasonable apprehension

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites IPC Sections 326-A, 326-B, 304-A, 96-106; PCRA Section 7-A; Tort law specific remedy provisions; no conflation of sections or statutesIdentifies most relevant sections correctly but may miss specific sub-sections or conflate 326-A with 326-B; general reference to 'IPC provisions'Incorrect section numbers, cites non-existent provisions, or confuses IPC with CrPC/Constitution; omits statutory basis entirely
Case-law citation20%10Cites Laxmi v. Union of India (2015) with specific suggestions; R v. Prince, Mayer Hans George, Yogendra Moraji, Spring Meadows Hospital; uses Indian precedents predominantlyMentions Laxmi case generally; cites 1-2 landmark cases correctly but misses key precedents for mens rea or private defence limitationsNo case citations, or incorrect/foreign cases without Indian context; cites unrelated judgments like Vishaka or Olga Tellis
Doctrinal analysis20%10Explains actus reus-mens rea concurrence doctrine, strict liability exceptions; analyzes 'proportionality' in private defence; evaluates effectiveness of acid attack laws with empirical insightBasic explanation of doctrines without depth; descriptive rather than analytical on effectiveness; misses nuance between voluntary and involuntary actsNo doctrinal engagement; purely descriptive listing of sections; confuses criminal law principles with tort concepts
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Links PCRA Section 7-A to Article 17 (constitutional abolition of untouchability); contrasts Indian acid attack laws with international frameworks; notes human rights dimension in Laxmi suggestionsBrief mention of Article 17 without elaboration; superficial reference to constitutional values; no comparative perspectiveNo constitutional or comparative engagement; treats statutes in isolation; misses Article 17 entirely
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes across sub-parts: notes how criminal law (mens rea) differs from tort (strict liability); suggests concrete improvements for acid attack victim rehabilitation; balanced conclusion on private defence limitsSeparate conclusions for each part without synthesis; generic recommendations; no forward-looking suggestionsNo conclusion; abrupt ending; or repetitive summary without value addition; misses opportunity to connect criminal and tort remedies

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 2022 Paper II