Law 2022 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Q2

(a) The 'State Liability' under the Law of Tort has undergone metamorphosis. Explain with the help of case laws. (20 marks) (b) "The provisions of Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 relate to the question of offence while Section 34 is a question of evidence." Give reasons for the statement. (15 marks) (c) How is the rule of 'absolute liability' different from 'strict liability'? Cite the relevant judgements. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(क) अपकृति विधि के अंतर्गत 'राज्य दायित्व' रूपान्तरणों से गुजरा है। निर्णय विधि की सहायता से व्याख्या कीजिये। (20 अंक) (ख) "भारतीय दण्ड संहिता (आई० पी० सी०), 1860 की धारा 149 के प्रावधान अपराध के प्रश्न से सम्बन्धित हैं, जबकि धारा 34 साक्ष्य के प्रश्न से।" इस कथन के कारणों का उल्लेख कीजिये। (15 अंक) (ग) 'पूर्ण (आत्यंतिक) दायित्व' का नियम, 'कठोर दायित्व' से किस प्रकार भिन्न है? प्रासांगिक निर्णयों का उद्धरण दीजिये। (15 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 with reasoning and illustrations. Structure: Introduction (2-3 lines) noting the interconnected themes of state accountability and criminal liability. For part (a) [20 marks, ~40% time/words], trace the evolution from Crown immunity to welfare state liability via case laws. For part (b) [15 marks, ~30%], analyse Sections 34 and 149 IPC with their evidentiary versus substantive distinctions. For part (c) [15 marks, ~30%], differentiate absolute and strict liability with judicial precedents. Conclude by synthesizing how these doctrines reflect modern constitutional values of accountability.

Key points expected

  • (a) State liability evolution: Crown immunity (Kishanchand v. State of Rajasthan), P&O Steamship (1861), Stanley v. Secretary of State, Kasturilal v. State of UP (1952), Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan (1974), and modern position in Nilabati Behera (1993) and Common Cause (1996)
  • (a) Constitutional shift: Article 300, welfare state concept, and rejection of feudal immunity in modern jurisprudence
  • (b) Section 34 IPC: Common intention as rule of evidence, requires participation in act, substantive offence not created, merely joint liability principle
  • (b) Section 149 IPC: Unlawful assembly membership creates substantive offence, constructive liability for acts done in prosecution of common object, wider scope than Section 34
  • (b) Distinction: Section 34 needs prior concert and participation; Section 149 needs common object, presence in assembly sufficient, liability extends to acts not specifically agreed upon
  • (c) Strict liability: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), escape of dangerous thing, exceptions (Act of God, third party, plaintiff's fault), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) context
  • (c) Absolute liability: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak case), Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, no exceptions permitted, enterprise must bear risk
  • (c) Key differences: Escape requirement vs. no escape requirement; exceptions available vs. no exceptions; compensation limited vs. exemplary damages possible; hazardous industry context

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely quotes Section 34 and 149 IPC with accurate textual reproduction; correctly identifies Article 300 for state liability; distinguishes substantive offence from rule of evidence with exact statutory languageMentions sections correctly but paraphrases loosely; confuses substantive provisions with evidentiary rules; minor errors in Article citationMisquotes sections, confuses Section 34 with 149, cites wrong constitutional provisions, or omits statutory basis entirely
Case-law citation20%10Cites 8-10 relevant cases with correct years and benches: for (a) Kasturilal, Nilabati Behera, Common Cause; for (b) Barendra Kumar Ghosh, Mahbub Shah; for (c) Rylands v. Fletcher, M.C. Mehta, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action; notes ratio decidendiNames 5-7 cases with some year/bench errors; mixes up similar precedents; lacks specificity on what each case establishedFewer than 4 cases cited, significant factual errors in case names/years, cites irrelevant judgments, or omits landmark precedents like M.C. Mehta or Kasturilal
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a), explains feudal immunity → constitutional tort → human rights remedy progression; for (b), analytically separates common intention from common object with doctrinal clarity; for (c), explains why absolute liability rejects exceptions as policy choice for hazardous enterprisesDescribes doctrines superficially without explaining 'why' of legal shifts; conflates similar concepts; misses policy rationale behind M.C. Mehta innovationMerely lists doctrines without analysis; fails to identify the 'metamorphosis' in state liability; cannot distinguish common intention from common object doctrinally
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Links state liability to Article 21's positive obligations and constitutional torts; contrasts English Crown Proceedings Act 1947 with Indian position; connects absolute liability to environmental justice and sustainable development; references Vishaka guidelines for state accountabilityMentions constitutional provisions without integration; superficial comparison with English law; misses environmental justice dimensionNo constitutional linkage; treats tort and criminal law as isolated domains; ignores comparative context or policy underpinnings of liability rules
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent thesis on state and corporate accountability in modern Indian law; applies principles to contemporary issues (Bhopal Gas tragedy legacy, environmental disasters, police encounters); suggests reform for victim compensation frameworksSummarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion without contemporary application; no reform suggestionsNo conclusion or abrupt ending; fails to connect sub-parts; no application to current legal challenges or policy gaps

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