Law 2024 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q1

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 प्रश्न 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

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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

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.

Key points expected

  • (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

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of IPC Sections 120A-120B, 304-A, 76-79; Article 300 Constitution; CPA 2019 Sections 2(34), 82-87; no confusion between 1860 and 2019 statutesMentions correct statutes but with section number errors or conflates 1986 and 2019 CPA provisions; minor inaccuracies in Article 300 referenceWrong sections cited (e.g., Section 34 IPC for conspiracy), omits key statutes, or cites repealed provisions
Case-law citation20%10Accurate case names with years: (a) R v. Prince, Sherras; (b) Nalini, Mirza Akbar; (c) Jacob Mathew, Kurban Hussein; (d) Kasturilal, Nilabati Behera; (e) VP Shantha; facts briefly linked to ratioCorrect case names but wrong years or jurisdictions; misses landmark cases like Nalini or Jacob Mathew; cites cases without relevance to specific sub-partFabricated case names, wrong jurisdictions (English cases for Indian law without authority), or complete absence of judicial precedents
Doctrinal analysis20%10Clear exposition of mens rea exceptions (strict liability, absolute liability); conspiracy as inchoate crime; rashness-negligence continuum; sovereign-non-sovereign function distinction; product liability as strict liability evolutionSuperficial treatment of doctrines; conflates common intention (Section 34) with conspiracy; misses strict liability evolution in product liabilityFundamental doctrinal errors: treats conspiracy as completed offence, ignores inchoate nature, or fails to distinguish mens rea exceptions
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (d): Article 300 constitutional tort evolution, rejection of Kasturilal in Nilabati; for (e): EU Product Liability Directive 1985 comparison; for (a): English common law influence on IPC; human rights jurisprudence in state liabilityMentions Article 300 or Constitution vaguely without tracing evolution; misses international standards in product liability; no comparative common law referenceNo constitutional or comparative dimension; ignores Article 300 completely; treats state liability as purely statutory
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes: mens rea as fundamental but qualified; conspiracy as dangerous requiring broad liability; 304-A as balancing act; state liability expanding via constitutional torts; product liability as consumer welfare paradigm shift; contemporary relevance notedMechanical conclusions per sub-part without synthesis; misses paradigm shift in consumer law or expansion of state liability; no contemporary applicationNo conclusions or abrupt endings; fails to address the 'explain' directive's demand for demonstrated understanding; missing contemporary relevance

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 2024 Paper II