Law 2023 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Q6

(a) "The Constitutional courts through their judicial activism have made substantial contribution in protecting women against exploitation, using Public Interest Litigation as a tool for securing their Constitutional rights." Explain with leading case laws. 20 (b) "A minor's contract being void, ordinarily it should be wholly devoid of all effects. If there is no contract, there should, indeed, be no contractual obligation on either side." Explain with case laws. 15 (c) "A 'bearer instrument' is transferable by simple delivery. An 'instrument payable to order' can be transferred by endorsement and delivery." Explain. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "महिलाओं के सांविधानिक अधिकारों को सुनिश्चित करने में जनहित वाद को एक उपकरण की तरह प्रयोग करते हुए सांविधानिक न्यायालयों ने न्यायिक सक्रियता से महिलाओं के विरुद्ध शोषण से सुरक्षित करने में महत्वपूर्ण योगदान किया है ।" निर्देशक (मुख्य)-वाद विधियों के साथ व्याख्या कीजिए । 20 (b) "एक अवयस्क की संविदा शून्य होने के कारण, सामान्यतया इसे सभी प्रभावों से मुक्त होना चाहिए । यदि कोई संविदा नहीं है, तो वास्तव में दोनों तरफ कोई संविदात्मक बाध्यता भी नहीं होनी चाहिए ।" वाद-विधियों के साथ व्याख्या कीजिए । 15 (c) "एक 'वाहक लिखत' सामान्य वितरण द्वारा अंतरणीय होता है। एक 'आदेशानुसार देय लिखत' को पृष्ठांकन अथवा वितरण द्वारा अंतरित किया जा सकता है।" व्याख्या कीजिये। 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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' requires clear exposition with reasoning and illustrations. Structure: Introduction (2-3 lines) acknowledging judicial activism, minor's contract voidability, and negotiable instruments distinction. Body: Allocate ~40% words to part (a) covering PIL evolution, Vishaka guidelines, Sabarimala, Triple Talaq; ~30% to part (b) analyzing Mohori Bibee, Nash v. Inman, and beneficial contract exceptions; ~30% to part (c) contrasting Sections 46 vs. 47 of NI Act with examples. Conclude by synthesizing how judicial creativity, statutory interpretation, and commercial law certainty serve distinct social purposes.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Evolution of PIL from S.P. Gupta to Vishaka guidelines (1997) for workplace sexual harassment as binding law under Article 141
  • Part (a): Sabarimala (2018), Triple Talaq (Shayara Bano 2017), and Nirbhaya-inspired criminal law reforms showing judicial activism's gender justice role
  • Part (b): Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) establishing minor's contract void ab initio with no restitution obligation
  • Part (b): Exceptions under Sections 68-69 of Contract Act (necessaries, beneficial contracts) and Nash v. Inman (1908) on necessaries
  • Part (c): Section 46 NI Act (bearer instrument: delivery alone) vs. Section 47 (order instrument: endorsement + delivery)
  • Part (c): Distinction between 'bearer' and 'order' and consequences for holder in due course protection under Section 9

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Articles 14, 15, 21, 32, 141, 226 for (a); Sections 10, 11, 68, 69 of Contract Act for (b); Sections 46, 47, 9 of NI Act for (c) with correct statutory languageMentions broad constitutional/statutory provisions but with minor numbering errors or conflates similar sectionsIncorrect sections cited (e.g., Article 32 for minor's contract) or omits statutory basis entirely
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Vishaka, Sabarimala, Shayara Bano, Gaurav Jain; For (b): Mohori Bibee, Nash v. Inman, Leslie v. Shiell; For (c): Re London Joint Stock Bank (1887) or relevant NI Act precedents with accurate factsCites 2-3 landmark cases correctly but misses recent judgments or conflates facts of similar casesNo case laws or incorrect attribution (e.g., Vishaka for minor's contract, Mohori Bibee for PIL)
Doctrinal analysis20%10Explains 'void ab initio' vs. 'voidable' in (b); traces judicial law-making vs. legislative function tension in (a); analyzes holder's rights continuum in (c) with doctrinal coherence across all partsBasic doctrinal understanding shown but superficial treatment of tensions between judicial activism and separation of powersConfuses fundamental doctrines (e.g., calls minor's contract voidable, mischaracterizes bearer instrument negotiation)
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Critiques PIL overreach (Arundhati Roy contempt, judicial populism) alongside empowerment; For (b): Contrasts Indian strict approach with English law's restitutionary remedies; For (c): Compares with English Bills of Exchange Act on negotiation modesMentions constitutional values or comparative glimpses without systematic development or critical balanceNo comparative perspective; uncritical celebration of judicial activism or complete absence of constitutional values discussion
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes how (a) fills legislative gaps for gender justice, (b) balances protection with necessaries exception, (c) ensures commercial certainty; suggests calibrated activism and statutory claritySummarizes each part separately without integrative insight or forward-looking recommendationsNo conclusion or abrupt ending; repeats question without value addition; irrelevant personal opinions without legal grounding

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 2023 Paper II