Law 2022 Paper II 50 marks Summarize

Q4

(a) Summarize the law relating to 'attempt to suicide' in India. How far the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 added new dimensions to the law of attempt to suicide in India? (20 marks) (b) Outline the legal framework for the protection of online consumers provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. (15 marks) (c) "Tortious liability arises from breach of duty primarily fixed by the law. This duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages." Comment. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(क) भारत में 'आत्महत्या के प्रयास' से सम्बन्धित विधि का सार प्रस्तुत कीजिए। भारत में आत्महत्या के प्रयास के कानून में मैन्टल हेल्थकेयर अधिनियम, 2017 ने कहाँ तक नये आयाम जोड़े हैं? (20 अंक) (ख) उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम, 2019 और उपभोक्ता संरक्षण (ई-कॉमर्स) नियमों, 2020 के अन्तर्गत ऑनलाइन उपभोक्ताओं को प्रदत्त सुरक्षाओं की विधिक रूपरेखा बनाइए। (15 अंक) (ग) "प्राथमिक रूप से विधि द्वारा निर्धारित कर्तव्य के भंग होने से अपकृत्यात्मक दायित्व उत्पन्न होता है। यह कर्तव्य सामान्यतया व्यक्तियों के प्रति होता है और इसका भंग अपरिनिधीरित नुकसानी के लिए कार्यवाही द्वारा उपचारयोग्य होता है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Law questions

Directive word: Summarize

This question asks you to summarize. 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 'summarize' for part (a) requires a concise yet comprehensive overview of the legal evolution, while 'outline' for part (b) and 'comment' for part (c) demand structured exposition and critical engagement respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on the thematic connection (state intervention in personal autonomy, consumer welfare, and civil wrongs); body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing how modern Indian law balances individual rights with social protection across these domains.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Section 309 IPC (now Section 115 MHCA 2017), decriminalization via MHCA 2017 Section 115, shift from penal to healthcare approach, presumption of severe stress, State's duty to provide care not punishment
  • Part (a): Constitutional dimensions - Article 21 right to die with dignity in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) and its interplay with attempt to suicide law
  • Part (b): CPA 2019 provisions on e-commerce - Section 2(16) definition, Section 94 (unfair contracts), Section 2(42) consumer rights; E-Commerce Rules 2020 on inventory vs. marketplace models, duties of disclosure, grievance redressal mechanism, liability framework
  • Part (c): Winfield's definition analysis - duty fixed by law vs. contract, unliquidated damages, general duty to world at large; distinction from contractual and quasi-contractual liability; Donoghue v. Stevenson neighbour principle
  • Part (c): Essential elements of tort - legal damage, wrongful act, remedy by way of damages; illustrations from Rylands v. Fletcher, nuisance, negligence; contemporary Indian applications

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Section 115 MHCA 2017 with exact wording on presumption of severe stress; correctly identifies Sections 2(16), 94, 94(2)(c) of CPA 2019; accurately quotes Winfield's definition for part (c); no confusion between Section 306 IPC (abetment) and attempt provisionsMentions MHCA 2017 decriminalization and CPA 2019 e-commerce provisions but with incorrect section numbers or incomplete references; vague on Winfield's exact formulationConfuses attempt to suicide with abetment; cites repealed Section 309 IPC without noting current status; conflates CPA 2019 with 1986 Act provisions; fundamentally misunderstands tort duty as contractual
Case-law citation20%10Cites Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) on right to die with dignity; Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug (2011) for historical context; Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) for neighbour principle; Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) for strict liability; recent NCDRC/SC decisions on e-commerce liabilityMentions landmark cases but without accurate facts or ratio; cites Donoghue but misses neighbour principle; generic reference to 'Supreme Court held' without specificityNo case law cited; or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., Vishaka for attempt to suicide); invents non-existent judgments; confuses tort cases with contract cases
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a), analyzes shift from moral condemnation to therapeutic jurisprudence; for (b), distinguishes inventory and marketplace models with liability implications; for (c), unpacks 'duty fixed by law' vs. voluntarily assumed, 'unliquidated' vs. liquidated damages, 'persons generally' vs. specific partiesDescribes the legal position without analyzing underlying doctrinal tensions; superficial treatment of therapeutic vs. penal models; basic distinction between tort and contract without depthPurely descriptive with no doctrinal engagement; fails to identify that tort duty is imposed by law not agreement; misses significance of unliquidated damages as distinguishing feature
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a), engages Article 21 autonomy vs. state paternalism debate, compares with UK Suicide Act 1961; for (b), contrasts Indian e-commerce rules with EU Digital Services Act or US Section 230; for (c), references constitutional torts (Rudul Shah) and expanding Article 21 jurisprudenceMentions Article 21 for part (a) but without nuanced analysis; superficial comparison with foreign jurisdictions; notes constitutional torts but doesn't integrate with Winfield's definitionNo constitutional or comparative dimension; treats all three parts as purely statutory black-letter law; ignores human rights framework of MHCA 2017
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes three parts through theme of evolving legal responses to vulnerability (mental health, consumer asymmetry, injury prevention); suggests reforms like assisted dying debate extension, need for dedicated e-commerce tribunal, or codification of tort law; demonstrates awareness of contemporary implementation challengesSeparate conclusions for each part without thematic integration; generic recommendations without specificity; no forward-looking perspectiveNo conclusion; or abrupt ending without summarizing position; purely academic treatment with no connection to contemporary legal development or policy

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