(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) '

Question

(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

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

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

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Provision / section accuracy	20%	10	Precisely cites CrPC Sections 265A-265L for plea bargaining; Sections 85-86 IPC for intoxication; and PCA 1988 Sections 7, 13, 19 along with 2018 Amendment provisions, with no errors in section numbers or content	Identifies major sections correctly but has minor numbering errors or omits key sub-sections like 265B (procedure) or 13(1)(e) (disproportionate assets)	Confuses provisions across statutes, cites repealed sections, or fails to mention statutory framework entirely
Case-law citation	20%	10	Cites Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956) for involuntary intoxication; DPP v. Beard and Tandy for specific intent doctrine; Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976) on PCA; and recent SC rulings like Vineet Narain or Common Cause on PCA implementation	Mentions 2-3 leading cases with correct facts but lacks ratio decidendi or cites peripheral cases instead of foundational precedents	Cites cases incorrectly, confuses intoxication precedents with insanity cases, or omits case law entirely despite explicit question requirement
Doctrinal analysis	20%	10	For (a): Analyzes retributive vs. utilitarian justifications, victim participation concerns, and empirical critique; For (b): Explains 'mens rea' preservation, specific vs. basic intent distinction; For (c): Examines strict liability vs. mens rea in corruption, presumption of guilt under Section 20	Describes doctrines superficially without critical engagement—e.g., notes plea bargaining saves time without analyzing justice trade-offs, or states intoxication defence exists without explaining its narrow scope	Conflates legal doctrines (e.g., treats intoxication as complete defence like insanity) or provides purely descriptive account without analytical depth
Comparative / constitutional angle	20%	10	For (a): Compares with US plea bargaining (Bordenkircher v. Hayes) and critiques Article 21 implications; For (b): Contrasts English common law (Majewski rules) with Indian position; For (c): References UNCAC, Transparency International rankings, and Article 14 equality concerns in PCA enforcement	Makes passing reference to foreign systems or constitutional values without systematic comparison or specific precedent application	No comparative element or constitutional analysis despite clear scope in all three sub-parts
Conclusion & application	20%	10	Synthesizes across parts: argues whether efficiency mechanisms (plea bargaining, strict corruption laws) compromise substantive justice; proposes concrete reforms—expanding plea categories, codifying intoxication standards, PCA amendments for victim compensation; demonstrates policy awareness of Law Commission reports	Summarizes each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; offers generic recommendations without specificity to Indian context	No conclusion or abrupt ending; fails to return to question's premise about reducing delay and undertrial population; no practical application suggested

Q2

Directive word: Justify

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2024 Paper II