Law 2024 Paper II 50 marks Comment

Q4

(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 प्रश्न 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

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Law questions

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 '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.

Key points expected

  • 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)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Sections 359-362, 107-108 IPC for parts (b)-(c); for (a), accurate reference to Articles 21, 47, 48-A and the specific paragraphs from M.C. Mehta establishing absolute liability without exceptionsCorrect general sections but imprecise on sub-sections or misstates age limits in kidnapping; vague on constitutional provisions in (a)Wrong sections (e.g., confusing abduction with kidnapping sections) or omits statutory basis entirely; no mention of IPC provisions for abetment
Case-law citation20%10M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 with Oleum Gas Leak specifics; Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) for contrast; Faguna v. State of Orissa, Sanju v. State of M.P. for abetment; State of Haryana v. Raja Ram for kidnapping/abduction distinctionMentions M.C. Mehta but without year or facts; generic case names for abetment without specific ratio; misses Rylands comparisonNo case law or invented citations; confuses M.C. Mehta with other environmental cases; fails to cite any authority for doctrinal propositions
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Deep Pocket theory, enterprise liability, critique of fault-based liability; for (b): clear analytical distinction between substantive vs. intent-dependent offences; for (c): mens rea autonomy in abetment with doctrinal coherence across all three partsDescribes doctrines without critical engagement; superficial comparison of kidnapping/abduction; states abetment intention rule without explaining why act of abetted person is irrelevantMerely reproduces section language without doctrinal unpacking; conflates kidnapping and abduction; fails to explain the 'intention not act' principle in abetment
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): comparison with U.S. strict liability (Indian Chemical Council v. Union of India), EU environmental liability directives; constitutional morality and PIL jurisprudence; for (b)-(c): human rights dimensions (child rights, fair trial concerns in abetment)Brief mention of Article 21 in (a) without elaboration; no comparative law; superficial rights-based observation in other partsNo constitutional or comparative dimension; ignores the public law foundations of absolute liability; treats all parts as purely technical criminal law
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes three doctrines as evolving Indian criminal and tort law toward greater social protection; references Bhopal Gas Tragedy, recent industrial disasters; evaluates whether absolute liability achieves deterrence; suggests legislative reforms for abetment in digital ageSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic observation on need for strict laws; no contemporary applicationNo conclusion or abrupt ending; mere summary of points; no application to current legal challenges or policy 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