All 8 questions from UPSC Civil Services Mains Law
2024 Paper II (400 marks total). Every stem reproduced in full,
with directive-word analysis, marks, word limits, and answer-approach pointers.
8Questions
400Total marks
2024Year
Paper IIPaper
Topics covered
Criminal law principles - mens rea, conspiracy, negligence, vicarious liability, product liability (1)Plea bargaining, intoxication as defence, Prevention of Corruption Act (1)Property offences - theft, misappropriation, CBT; nuisance; false imprisonment (1)Absolute liability, kidnapping vs abduction, abetment (1)Contract law - quasi-contract, LLP, unpaid seller, agency, geographical indications (1)Damages for breach, illegal vs void contracts, surety liability (1)Arbitral autonomy, indemnity, mistake in contract (1)Public interest litigation, IT Act safe harbour, RTI information format (1)
A
Q1
50M150wCompulsoryexplainCriminal law principles - mens rea, conspiracy, negligence, vicarious liability, product liability
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and Judicial pronouncements : 10×5=50
(a) The underlying principle of mens-rea is expressed in the familiar Latin maxim — 'actus non-facit reum nisi mens sit rea,' – 'the act does not make a man guilty unless the mind is also guilty.' Explain with decided cases. 10
(b) 'The principle that every conspirator is liable for all the acts of co-conspirators if they are towards attaining the goals of the conspiracy even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of that offence/s.' In the light of above statement, explain the principle of criminal conspiracy as per Indian Penal Code 1860. 10
(c) 'It is the degree of negligence which really determines whether a particular action will amount to rash and negligent act as required to hold a person guilty of homicide under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.' Discuss. 10
(d) 'The determination of vicarious liability of the state is linked with the negligence made by all its functionaries and no immunity can be claimed.' In the light of above observation discuss vicarious liability of state with reference to its sovereign functions. 10
(e) "The introduction of 'product liability' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 marked an end of the 'buyer beware' doctrine and the introduction of 'seller beware' as the new doctrine." Discuss. 10
हिंदी में पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए। अपना उत्तर सुसंगत विधिक प्रावधानों और न्यायिक निर्णयों से समर्थित कीजिए : 10×5=50
(a) दुराशय (मेन्स-रिया) का अन्तर्निहित सिद्धान्त एक प्रचलित लैटिन कहावत (मैक्सिम), — 'एक्टस नान फैसिट रियम निसि मेन्स सिट रिया,' – 'केवल कार्य किसी को अपराधी नहीं बनाता, यदि उसका मन भी अपराधी न हो,' में अभिव्यक्त है। निर्णीत वादों सहित समझाइए। 10
(b) 'यह सिद्धान्त कि सह-षड्यन्त्रकारियों के समस्त कार्यों के लिए प्रत्येक षड्यन्त्रकारी उत्तरदायी होगा, यदि वह षड्यन्त्र के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति की दिशा में किया गया है, भले ही उनमें से कुछ उस अपराध की पूर्णता में सक्रिय रूप से प्रतिभाग नहीं किये हैं।' उपरोक्त कथन के आलोक में भा. दण्ड संहिता 1860 के अनुसार 'आपराधिक षड्यन्त्र' को समझाइए। 10
(c) 'भारतीय दण्ड संहिता 1860 की धारा 304-A के अधीन व्यक्ति को मानव वध के लिए दोषी ठहराये जाने हेतु अपेक्षित कि क्या कोई विशिष्ट कृत्य उतावलापन या उपेक्षा से किया गया कृत्य है, वस्तुतः उपेक्षा की डिग्री (मात्रा) से विनिर्धारित होता है।' विवेचना कीजिए। 10
(d) 'राज्य के प्रतिनिहित दायित्व का विनिर्धारण इसके समस्त पदाधिकारियों द्वारा बरती गयी उपेक्षा से जुड़ी है और किसी उन्मुक्ति का दावा नहीं किया जा सकता है।' उपरोक्त संप्रेषण के आलोक में राज्य के प्रतिनिहित दायित्व का उसके सम्प्रभुकृत्यों के संदर्भ में विवेचना कीजिए। 10
(e) "उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम 2019 के अंतर्गत 'उत्पाद-दायित्व' का लागू किया जाना 'क्रेता-सावधान सिद्धांत' के अंत (समाप्ति) और 'विक्रेता-सावधान' के नये सिद्धांत के प्रारम्भ (स्थापना) को चिह्नित करता है।" विवेचना कीजिए। 10
Answer approach & key points
Explain each sub-part with precision within ~30 words each, allocating equal time and space since all carry 10 marks. Begin with the legal maxim/doctrine stated in the question, cite the relevant IPC section or statute, support with 1-2 landmark cases per part, and conclude with the contemporary legal position. Avoid lengthy introductions; prioritize statutory precision and judicial authority over narrative.
(a) Mens rea: Explain the maxim 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'; cite R v. Prince (1875) and Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) for strict liability exceptions; mention exceptions under IPC Sections 76-79 (general exceptions)
(b) Criminal conspiracy: Section 120A-120B IPC; explain common intention vs. conspiracy distinction; cite State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) and Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor (1940) for vicarious liability of conspirators
(c) Rashness and negligence: Section 304-A IPC; distinguish rash (higher risk) from negligent (failure of duty); cite Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) for medical negligence standards and Kurban Hussein v. State of Maharashtra
(d) Vicarious liability of state: Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP (1965) for sovereign immunity; shift post-Constitution via Article 300; cite Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) and Common Cause v. Union of India (1999)
(e) Product liability: Section 2(34) and Chapter VI Consumer Protection Act 2019; contrast with 1986 Act; explain 'seller beware' replacing caveat emptor; cite Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha (1995) for service liability extension
50MjustifyPlea bargaining, intoxication as defence, Prevention of Corruption Act
(a) "Justification for introduction of 'plea-bargaining' in India was that it will reduce delay in case of undertrial prisoners in a cheaper and quicker method." Do you appreciate its existence in the same form or not ? Justify your answer. 20
(b) 'Intoxication impairs perception and judgement both so one fails to foresee the result of his conduct.' In this backdrop, examine the law relating to the defence of intoxication and refer to the leading cases. 15
(c) How far do you agree that prevention of corruption Act 1988 is an important legal instrument in curbing corruption in the society. Discuss. What are the types of offences recognised under this law and what are punishments ? 15
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) "भारत में 'सौदा-अभिवाक' को लागू किये जाने का औचित्य यह रहा है कि यह विचाराधीन कैदियों के मामलों में सस्ता एवं शीघ्र विधि (तरीके) से विलम्ब को कम करेगा।" क्या आप इसके प्रचलन (अस्तित्व) के वर्तमान स्वरूप की प्रशंसा करते हैं अथवा नहीं ? अपने उत्तर का औचित्य सिद्ध करें। 20
(b) 'मत्ता (नशा) धारणा (बोध) और निर्णय-क्षमता को क्षीण (कम) करती है, जिससे एक व्यक्ति अपने आचरण (कृत्य) के परिणाम का पूर्वानुमान करने में असफल होता है।' इस पृष्ठभूमि में मत्ता के बचाव संबंधी विधि की समीक्षा कीजिए और निर्देशक वादों को संदर्भित कीजिए। 15
(c) आप कहाँ तक सहमत हैं कि भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम 1988 समाज में भ्रष्टाचार दूर करने में एक महत्वपूर्ण विधिक साधन (अभिकरण) है। विवेचना कीजिए। इस विधि के अंतर्गत मान्य अपराधों के प्रकार क्या हैं और दण्ड क्या हैं ? 15
Answer approach & key points
The directive 'justify' in part (a) demands reasoned argumentation with evidence, while parts (b) and (c) require 'examine' and 'discuss' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then dedicated sections for each sub-part with clear headings, and a synthesized conclusion addressing whether these criminal law mechanisms effectively balance efficiency with justice.
Part (a): Critical evaluation of plea bargaining under Chapter XXI-A CrPC (Sections 265A-265L), including its 2006 introduction via Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, with analysis of whether it has reduced undertrial detention as promised
Part (a): Assessment of limitations—exclusion of heinous offences, coercion concerns, judicial discretion in approval, and empirical data on actual usage rates
Part (b): Distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication under Sections 85 and 86 IPC, with explanation of 'dolus eventualis' and specific intent requirements
Part (b): Leading case analysis: Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956), Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard (1920), and Tandy (1989) on specific intent crimes
Part (c): Critical assessment of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 effectiveness, including 2018 amendments' impact on prosecutions and conviction rates
Part (c): Detailed enumeration of offence categories—bribery (Section 7), criminal misconduct (Section 13), possession of disproportionate assets (Section 13(1)(e)), and punishments under Sections 7-14
Part (c): Recognition of institutional challenges: CBI independence, sanction requirements, delay in trials, and recent Supreme Court observations on the Act's implementation gaps
(a) "It is the mode of acquiring possession of property of other party with/without his consent, which determines the type of offence against property and thus distinguishes theft, misappropriation and Criminal breach of trust." Discuss. 20
(b) "A person is liable for Public nuisance, when he does an act or illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public ..." Discuss Nuisance in the light of above statement along with its types. 15
(c) Explain 'false imprisonment' as per law of Torts and distinguish it from 'malicious prosecution.' 15
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) "सहमति सहित/बिना सहमति के दूसरे पक्ष की सम्पत्ति का कब्जा प्राप्ति का तरीका सम्पत्ति के विरुद्ध अपराधों के प्रकार को विनिर्धारित करता है और इस प्रकार — चोरी, दुर्विनियोग और आपराधिक न्यास-भंग को विभेदित करता है।" विवेचना कीजिए। 20
(b) "एक व्यक्ति लोक उपताप के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा, जब वह कोई कार्य या अवैध लोप करता है जिससे जन सामान्य को साधारण क्षति, खतरा या क्षोभ कारित होता है ..." उपरोक्त कथन के आलोक में उपताप का इसके प्रकारों सहित विवेचना कीजिए। 15
(c) अपकृत्य विधि के अनुसार 'मिथ्या-कारावास' को समझाइए और 'विद्वेषपूर्ण अभियोजन' से विभेदित कीजिए । 15
Answer approach & key points
The directive 'discuss' requires critical examination with balanced arguments. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on property offences and torts → systematic treatment of each sub-part with definitions, distinctions, and illustrations → integrated conclusion on how consent and mode of possession differentiate property crimes.
For (a): Distinguish theft (S. 378 IPC, consent absent, movable property, dishonest intention at taking), criminal misappropriation (S. 403 IPC, property comes lawfully but conversion is dishonest), and CBT (S. 405 IPC, entrustment + dominion + conversion); analyze 'mode of acquiring possession' as the differentia
For (a): Critical analysis of judicial tests—Emperor v. Basappa (entrustment in CBT), Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State (dishonest intention in theft), and Ratan Lal v. State of UP (misappropriation vs. CBT)
For (b): Public nuisance under S. 268 IPC read with S. 290 IPC; essential elements—act/illegal omission, common injury/danger/annoyance, to public or section thereof; distinction from private nuisance
For (b): Types—nuisance by encroachment (Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal), nuisance by noise (Fritz v. Hobson), trade nuisance, and statutory nuisances; leading cases like Rose v. Miles and Attorney-General v. PYA Quarries
For (c): False imprisonment—complete deprivation of liberty without lawful justification (S. 340 IPC and tort); essential elements—intentional act, complete restraint, absence of lawful excuse; Bird v. Jones and Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar
For (c): Malicious prosecution—wrongful initiation of judicial proceedings with malice and without reasonable cause; distinction table covering nature of wrong, damage required, burden of proof, and remedies; Khagendra Nath v. Jacob
For (c): Overlap with S. 358 CrPC (compensation for groundless arrest) and constitutional remedy under Article 32 for false imprisonment
50McommentAbsolute liability, kidnapping vs abduction, abetment
(a) 'If an enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profits, the cost of any accident arising on account of such activity must be an appropriate term of overheads.' Comment. (M. C. Mehta v. U.O.I.) 20
(b) 'Kidnapping is a substantive offence while abduction is not an offence exclusively. It becomes offence, when committed with a criminal intent.' Explain. 15
(c) 'The offence of abetment depends upon the intention of the abettor not upon the act committed by the abetted person.' Explain. 15
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) 'यदि किसी एक उद्यम को उसके लाभों के लिए किसी संकटमयी या स्वाभाविक रूप से जोखिमपूर्ण गतिविधि संचालित करने के लिए अनुमति दी जाती है तो ऐसी गतिविधि से उत्पन्न किसी दुर्घटना की कीमत के लिए उपरिव्यय (प्रभार) में समुचित शर्त (निबंधन) होगी ।' टिप्पणी कीजिए । (एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत संघ) 20
(b) 'व्यपहरण एक मौलिक अपराध है जबकि अपहरण आत्यंतिक रूप से अपराध नहीं है । यह जब आपराधिक आशय से किया जाता है तब अपराध हो जाता है ।' समझाइए । 15
(c) 'दुष्प्रेरण का अपराध दुष्प्रेरक के आशय पर निर्भर करता है न कि दुष्प्रेरित व्यक्ति द्वारा किये गये कार्य पर ।' समझाइए । 15
Answer approach & key points
The directive 'comment' for part (a) requires critical appreciation with reasoning, while parts (b) and (c) demand 'explain'—clarification with illustrations. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on strict liability evolution; body addressing each part sequentially with sections, cases, and critique; conclusion synthesizing how these doctrines balance individual rights and social interests in contemporary India.
Part (a): Absolute liability principle from M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) — no-fault liability for hazardous industries, non-delegable and non-defensible, Rylands v. Fletcher distinguished as inadequate for modern industrial hazards
Part (a): Constitutional basis in Articles 21, 47, 48-A; Deep Pocket theory; enterprise must internalize accident costs as social overhead; reference to Oleum Gas Leak case and subsequent environmental jurisprudence
Part (b): Kidnapping under Sections 359-361 IPC — specific intent (unlawful removal/confinement) makes it substantive; age distinction (minor under 16/18, woman of any age); complete in itself without further act
Part (b): Abduction under Section 362 IPC — mere act of compelling/inducing movement; becomes offence only when coupled with criminal intent specified in Sections 364-369 (murder, ransom, etc.); contrast with kidnapping's inherent criminality
Part (c): Abetment under Sections 107-120 IPC — mens rea of abettor is sole determinant; instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; illustration (a) to Section 107 (suicide abetment where act not completed)
Part (c): Doctrine of abetment independent of principal offence — Faguna v. State of Orissa, Sanju v. State of M.P.; distinction between abetment and conspiracy; Section 108 (abettor when person abetted is incapable or act not done)
50M150wCompulsoryexplainContract law - quasi-contract, LLP, unpaid seller, agency, geographical indications
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and Judicial pronouncements : 10×5=50
(a) A "'Quasi-Contract' arises out of judicial principles and not out of contractual agreement between two parties." Explain. 10
(b) Every partner of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) for the purposes of its business is its agent but not that of other partners. Analyse the extent of liability of LLP and its partners. 10
(c) 'The rights of an unpaid seller do not depend upon any agreement, express or implied, between the parties. They arise by implication of law.' Explain. 10
(d) Mutual rights and duties of the Principal and agent may be wholly provided for in their contract. Discuss the general duties of the agent with special reference to the duty of reasonable care and skill. 10
(e) What is the commercial significance of the Geographical Indications of Goods ? Explain the benefits that accrue to the registered proprietors and authorised users by registration of Geographical Indications of Goods. 10
हिंदी में पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए । अपना उत्तर सुसंगत विधिक प्रावधानों और न्यायिक निर्णयों से समर्थित कीजिए : 10×5=50
(a) "'संविदा-कल्प' न्यायिक सिद्धांतों से उद्भूत होती है और न कि दो पक्षकारों के मध्य संविदात्मक करार से ।" समझाइए । 10
(b) 'व्यापार के उद्देश्यों के लिए 'सीमित दायित्व भागीदारी' का प्रत्येक भागीदार इसका अभिकर्ता होता है परंतु दूसरे भागीदारों का नहीं ।' सीमित दायित्व भागीदारी और इसके भागीदारों के दायित्व के विस्तार-क्षेत्र का विश्लेषण कीजिए । 10
(c) 'असदत विक्रेता के अधिकार पक्षकारों के मध्य किसी अभिव्यक्त या विवक्षित करार पर निर्भर नहीं होते हैं । वह विधि की विवक्षा से उत्पन्न होते हैं ।' समझाइए । 10
(d) प्रमुख और अभिकर्ता के परस्पर अधिकार और कर्तव्य के लिए उपबंध उनके संविदा में पूर्णतः दिए जा सकें । अभिकर्ता के सामान्य कर्तव्यों का, युक्तियुक्त सावधानी एवं कौशल के विशेष संदर्भ में विवेचना कीजिए । 10
(e) सामानों (वस्तुओं) के भौगोलिक संकेतों (जी.आई.) का वाणिज्यिक महत्व क्या होता है ? सामानों के भौगोलिक संकेतों के पंजीकृत कराने से पंजीकृत मालिक और अधिकृत प्रयोक्ता के लिए उद्भूत लाभों को समझाइए । 10
Answer approach & key points
The directive 'explain' demands conceptual clarity with legal reasoning across all five sub-parts. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark (150 words × 5 parts), spending roughly 3 minutes per part. Structure each answer as: identification of the legal principle (1-2 lines), statutory provision with section number (2-3 lines), judicial pronouncement (2 lines), and brief application/conclusion (1-2 lines). Prioritize precision over elaboration given the tight word limit.
(a) Quasi-contract: Section 68-72 of Indian Contract Act 1872; constructive contract imposed by law (implied-in-law vs implied-in-fact); reference to Moses v. Macferlan or State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal
(b) LLP: Section 26 of Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008; distinction between LLP and general partnership liability; partner as agent of LLP not co-partners; limited liability shield with exceptions for fraud/wrongful acts
(c) Unpaid seller: Sections 45-54 of Sale of Goods Act 1930; statutory rights (lien, stoppage in transit, resale) as independent of contract terms; automatic operation of law
(d) Agent's duties: Sections 211-214 of Indian Contract Act 1872; duty of reasonable care and skill (Section 211) with reference to Keppel v. Wheeler or Lucifero v. Castel
(e) GI: Sections 2(1)(e), 11-21 of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999; commercial significance (brand value, export premium, terroir protection); benefits to registered proprietors and authorized users
50MdiscussDamages for breach, illegal vs void contracts, surety liability
(a) Discuss the rules which are taken into account by the courts while awarding damages for the breach of contract. Refer to the relevant statutory provisions and case law. 20
(b) 'An illegal contract is always void but a void contract is not always illegal.' Examine while illustrating both the types of contract. 15
(c) 'The liability of a surety is secondary, but it is co-extensive with that of Principal debtor.' In this backdrop, discuss the nature and extent of liability of surety. 15
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) संविदा-भंग के लिए प्रतिकर (नुकसानी) अधिनिर्णीत करते समय न्यायालयों द्वारा गणना में लिए जाने वाले नियमों की विवेचना कीजिए । सुसंगत सांविधिक प्रावधानों और वाद विधि को संदर्भित कीजिए । 20
(b) 'एक अवैध संविदा सदैव शून्य होती है परन्तु एक शून्य संविदा सदैव अवैध नहीं होती है ।' दोनों प्रकार की संविदा का उदाहरण देते हुए परीक्षण कीजिए । 15
(c) 'प्रतिभू का दायित्व द्वितीयक (गौण) होता है परन्तु यह मूल ऋणी के दायित्व के समविस्तीर्ण होता है ।' इस पृष्ठभूमि में प्रतिभू के दायित्व के प्रकृति और विस्तार की विवेचना कीजिए । 15
Answer approach & key points
The directive 'discuss' requires a comprehensive, analytical treatment with statutory provisions and case law. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) [20 marks], and 30% each to parts (b) and (c) [15 marks each]. Structure: brief introduction on contract law principles; systematic treatment of each sub-part with sections, cases, and illustrations; integrated conclusion on how these doctrines collectively shape contractual remedies and obligations under Indian law.
Part (a): Rules for damages under Sections 73-74 ICA 1872—remoteness (Hadley v. Baxendale), mitigation, liquidated vs. penalty; leading Indian cases like M.L. Devender Singh, Fateh Chand, Kailash Nath Associates
Part (a): Distinction between general/special damages and the duty to mitigate loss with supporting precedents
Part (b): Conceptual distinction between void (Section 2(j)) and illegal contracts; void for uncertainty, impossibility vs. illegal for forbidden by law, fraudulent, immoral
Part (b): Illustrations—void: agreement to sell uncertain goods; illegal: agreement to commit crime; Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadeo Das on voidability vs. illegality
Part (c): Nature of surety's liability under Section 128 ICA—secondary yet co-extensive; immediate creditor recourse against surety
Part (c): Extent of discharge of surety—Section 133-135 (variance, release of principal debtor, composition); Swami v. I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Lachhman Joharimal v. Bapu
50McommentArbitral autonomy, indemnity, mistake in contract
(a) "The principle of arbitral autonomy is an integral element of the ever evolving domain of arbitration law .... The basis of arbitral autonomy is to give effect to the true intention of the parties to distance themselves from the 'risk of domestic judicial parochialism.' " Comment with reference to the theory and practice. 20
(b) 'Sections 124 and 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are not exhaustive of the law of indemnity.' Comment in the context of Indemnity and Indemnity-holder's rights. 15
(c) 'Mistake does not defeat consent, but only misleads the parties.' Explain citing the relevant legal provisions and cases decided by the courts. 15
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) माध्यस्थम्-स्वायत्तता का सिद्धान्त माध्यस्थम् विधि के निरन्तर विकसित हो रहे क्षेत्र का एक अभिन्न तत्त्व है । माध्यस्थम्-स्वायत्तता का आधार पक्षकारों के वास्तविक आशय को प्रभावी बनाने के लिए देशज न्यायिक संकीर्णता के जोखिम से अपने को दूर रखना है । सिद्धान्त और व्यवहार के संदर्भ सहित टिप्पणी कीजिए । 20
(b) 'भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम 1872 की धाराएं 124 और 125 क्षतिपूर्ति की विधि के संबंध में पूर्ण नहीं है।' क्षतिपूर्ति और क्षतिपूर्ति-धारकों के अधिकारों के संदर्भ में टिप्पणी कीजिए। 15
(c) 'भूल सहमति को विफल नहीं करती है, बल्कि केवल पक्षकारों को भ्रमित करती है।' सुसंगत विधिक प्रावधानों और न्यायालयों द्वारा विनिर्णीत बादों को उद्धृत करते हुए समझाइए। 15
Answer approach & key points
The directive 'comment' requires critical appreciation with balanced analysis. Allocate approximately 40% time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on each sub-topic, analytical body addressing the specific proposition with supporting and contrary arguments, and a conclusion synthesizing the position. For (a), examine both theoretical foundations and practical judicial constraints; for (b), analyze statutory gaps and equitable extensions; for (c), distinguish between operative and non-operative mistakes with case illustrations.
Part (a): Arbitral autonomy as party autonomy principle; Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine; separability doctrine; judicial intervention limits under Sections 5, 16, 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; tension with public policy and mandatory law (Vodafone, Ssangyong, Perkins cases)
Part (a): 'Domestic judicial parochialism' critique—curial support vs. interference; international practice (UNCITRAL Model Law, ICC rules) contrasted with Indian judicial activism in setting aside awards
Part (b): Scope of Sections 124-125 ICA 1872; indemnity vs. guarantee distinction; implied indemnity in common law and equity (Secretary of State v. Bank of India); indemnity-holder's rights beyond statutory text—damages, specific performance, and equitable remedies
Part (c): Mistake under Sections 20-22 ICA 1872; bilateral vs. unilateral mistake; mistake as to fact vs. law; operative mistake vitiating consent (Bell v. Lever Bros, Great Peace Shipping) vs. non-operative mistake merely affecting motive
Part (c): Consensus ad idem requirement; cases where mistake renders contract void ab initio vs. voidable; equitable rectification and restitution remedies
50Mcritically examinePublic interest litigation, IT Act safe harbour, RTI information format
(a) "There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that 'public interest litigation' is now tending to become 'publicity interest litigation' or 'private interest litigation', and has a tendency to be counter-productive." Examine the statement critically. 20
(b) Discuss the relevance of the 'safe harbour' clause under the Information Technology Act 2000. Comment on the need to make the intermediaries liable for transmitting the posts and communications of third parties. 15
(c) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought. Are there any exceptions to this rule? Explain with suitable illustrations. 15
हिंदी में पढ़ें
(a) "हाल के वर्षों में, यह महसूस किया जा रहा है जो कि निराधार नहीं है, कि 'लोक हित वाद' अब 'प्रचार हित वाद' या 'निजी हित वाद' की ओर अनुकूल हो रहा है और जो एक प्रत्युत्पादक प्रवृत्ति है।" इस कथन का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। 20
(b) सूचना तकनीकी अधिनियम 2000 के अंतर्गत 'सेफ हार्बर' (सुरक्षित आश्रय) उपखंड की सुसंगतता का विवेचना कीजिए। तीसरे पक्षों की प्रविष्टियों (पोस्ट्स) और सूचनाओं को परोक्षित करने के लिए मध्यस्थों (विचौलियों) को उत्तरदायी बनाने की आवश्यकता पर टिप्पणी कीजिए। 15
(c) एक सूचना जिस रूप में मांगी गयी है, साधारणतया उसी रूप में दी जानी आवश्यक है। क्या इस नियम के कोई अपवाद हैं? उपयुक्त उदाहरण सहित समझाइए। 15
Answer approach & key points
The directive 'critically examine' for part (a) demands balanced evaluation with evidence; parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'explain' 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 acknowledging the tension in PIL's evolution; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with legal provisions, case law, and critical analysis; conclusion synthesizing themes on judicial accountability, intermediary responsibility, and transparency limits.
Part (a): PIL's original purpose (S.P. Gupta, Hussainara Khatoon) versus misuse (frivolous petitions, political agendas, judicial overreach); Supreme Court's self-corrective measures (locus standi tightening, imposition of costs, dismissal of vexatious petitions)
Part (a): Critical assessment of 'publicity interest litigation' critique—media trials, surrogate litigation, corporate PILs; counter-arguments on access to justice for marginalized
Part (b): Section 79 of IT Act 2000 and Rules 2011—conditions for safe harbour (due diligence, takedown upon actual knowledge); intermediary categories (passive conduit, cache, host)
Part (b): Need for intermediary liability—Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (striking down S.66A), evolving EU Digital Services Act comparison; debate on active monitoring vs. chilling effect
Part (c): Section 7(9) of RTI Act 2009—'form in which it is sought' rule; exceptions under S.7(9) proviso (disproportionate diversion of resources, infringement of copyright, endangering life/physical safety)
Part (c): Illustrations—digitization of voluminous records, third-party information formats, disclosure of intellectual property; case law on CPIO's discretion and applicant's right to inspection