Q8
(a) Under what circumstances, can an intermediary be held liable for third party-content hosted by them? Explain the liability of intermediaries in the light of the relevant legal provisions in IT Act and other contemporary developments. 20 (b) 'Media trials entail the possibility of subverting administration of justice.' In the light of this statement, analyse the report of Law Commission of India on Media Trial. 15 (c) "Though risk and property generally go together, the two are not inseparable. Sometimes risk may be in one party and property in another." Discuss the law relating to 'passing off risk' under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 15
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) तृतीय पक्ष-सामग्री उन्हीं द्वारा होस्ट (प्रस्तुत) करने का उत्तरदायी, किसी मध्यस्थ को, किन परिस्थितियों में ठहराया जा सकता है? सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी अधिनियम में सुसंगत विधिक उपबंधों और अन्य समकालीन विकासों (गतिविधियों) के प्रकाश में मध्यस्थों के उत्तरदायित्व की व्याख्या कीजिए। 20 (b) 'मीडिया-परीक्षणों में न्याय-प्रशासन को नष्ट करने की संभावना होती है । इस कथन के आलोक में, मीडिया परीक्षण पर भारत के विधि आयोग की रिपोर्ट का विश्लेषण कीजिये । 15 (c) "यद्यपि जोखिम और सम्पत्ति आमतौर पर एक साथ चलते हैं, दोनों अपृथक् (अविभाज्य) नहीं हैं । कभी-कभी जोखिम एक पार्टी में और सम्पत्ति दूसरे में हो सकती है ।" माल विक्रय अधिनियम, 1930 के अन्तर्गत 'जोखिम चला देना' से सम्बन्धित विधि की विवेचना कीजिये । 15
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 examples. Structure: Introduction (2-3 lines) → Part (a): ~40% words (800-900) covering Section 79 safe harbour, due diligence, actual knowledge, and Shreya Singhal; Part (b): ~30% words (600-700) analysing Law Commission Report 200th on media trial, contempt, and fair trial under Article 21; Part (c): ~30% words (600-700) discussing Sections 26-30 of Sale of Goods Act with res perit domino exception; Conclusion synthesising digital age challenges to traditional legal principles (3-4 lines).
Key points expected
- Part (a): Section 79 IT Act safe harbour, 'actual knowledge' vs 'general awareness', Rule 3 of IT Rules 2011, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) striking down Section 66A, and Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes (2017) on 'actual knowledge' standard
- Part (a): Intermediary liability under Copyright Act (Section 52) and proposed amendments in Digital India Act; distinction between passive conduit and active participant
- Part (b): Law Commission of India 200th Report (2006) on 'Trial by Media: Free Speech vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure'; recommendations on postponement orders, contempt powers, and regulatory body
- Part (b): Constitutional tension between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21; Sakal Papers, R. Rajagopal, and Sahara India cases; prejudicial publicity affecting sub-judice matters
- Part (c): Section 26 (goods perishing before sale), Section 27 (specific goods perishing after agreement), Sections 28-30 (risk prima facie passes with property unless otherwise agreed)
- Part (c): Exception to res perit domino: delivery on sale or return (Section 24), goods on approval, and cases where risk passes before/after property (Sterns Ltd v. Vickers Ltd)
- Synthesis: Contemporary developments including Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, proposed Digital India Act, and evolving judicial standards on intermediary liability
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precise citation of Section 79 IT Act with sub-sections, Rule 3 IT Rules 2011, Law Commission Report 200th year, and Sections 26-30 Sale of Goods Act 1930; no conflation of 200th Report with other reports | Correct identification of main sections but missing sub-sections or conflating IT Act provisions with Copyright Act provisions; vague reference to 'Law Commission Report' without number | Incorrect sections (e.g., Section 66A as still valid), wrong report number, or complete omission of statutory provisions |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | Shreya Singhal (2015) for intermediary liability and Article 19; Myspace/Super Cassettes for 'actual knowledge'; Sahara India Real Estate (2012) for media guidelines; Sterns v. Vickers for risk/property separation | Mentions Shreya Singhal but misses ratio on intermediary liability; general reference to 'Supreme Court held' without case names; correct principle but wrong case citation | No case law or incorrect cases (e.g., Vishaka guidelines for media trial); fabricated case names |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | Clear exposition of 'actual knowledge' doctrine vs. 'constructive notice'; analysis of 'substantive due process' in media trial context; explanation of res perit domino and its statutory exceptions with commercial rationale | Describes safe harbour without explaining 'actual knowledge' distinction; states risk passes with property without explaining exceptions; superficial treatment of Law Commission recommendations | Confused doctrines (e.g., treating Section 79 as creating liability rather than immunity); no explanation of why risk and property may separate |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | Balances Article 19(1)(a) with Article 21 in media trial analysis; references EU Digital Services Act or US Section 230 for comparative intermediary law; connects Sale of Goods Act to commercial efficiency and party autonomy | Mentions Article 19 and 21 without balancing; brief reference to foreign law without comparison; constitutional values stated but not applied | No constitutional dimension; purely descriptive treatment of all three parts; ignores contemporary policy developments |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Synthesises three parts through theme of 'balancing competing interests'—intermediary protection vs. accountability, free press vs. fair trial, commercial certainty vs. party autonomy; suggests way forward for Digital India Act and media self-regulation | Separate conclusions for each part without synthesis; generic recommendations ('government should act'); no forward-looking perspective | Abrupt ending or missing conclusion; no application to contemporary issues; purely summarises previous points |
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
- Q1 Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answers with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. 10×5=50 (a)…
- Q2 (a) A twenty year old girl 'G' was coming back to home after attending college. A man 'M' held her, shut her mouth and dragged her to a nea…
- Q3 (a) Discuss the law relating to 'Assault or Criminal force' to woman with intent to 'Outrage her Modesty' and 'Sexual Harassment' as define…
- Q4 (a) "Dishonest Intention is the gist of the offence of Theft." Examine the above statement with the help of relevant illustrations. Also di…
- Q5 Answer the following in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. 10×5=50 (a) "…
- Q6 (a) "The Constitutional courts through their judicial activism have made substantial contribution in protecting women against exploitation,…
- Q7 (a) "'Standard-contracts' contain a large number of terms and conditions in 'fine print' which restrict or often exclude liability under th…
- Q8 (a) Under what circumstances, can an intermediary be held liable for third party-content hosted by them? Explain the liability of intermedi…