Q7
(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 प्रश्न 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
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' 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.
Key points expected
- 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
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precise citation of Sections 5, 16, 34 of A&C Act 1996 for (a); Sections 124-125, 20-22 of ICA 1872 for (b) and (c); accurate textual interpretation with sub-section references; mentions 2015/2019 amendments where relevant | Correct identification of major sections but missing sub-sections or amendment details; some conflation of indemnity with guarantee provisions | Incorrect section numbers, confusing ICA with A&C Act provisions, or complete omission of statutory framework |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | For (a): Bharat Aluminium, Ssangyong, Perkins, Vodafone; for (b): Secretary of State v. Bank of India, Gajanan Moreshwar; for (c): Bell v. Lever Bros, Great Peace Shipping, Cundy v. Lindsay, Solle v. Butcher—correct facts and ratio | Mentions landmark cases but misstates facts or ratio; omits recent developments like Ssangyong for (a) | No case law or incorrect case names; cites cases irrelevant to the specific legal proposition |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a): Kompetenz-Kompetenz, separability, minimal curial intervention; for (b): indemnity as independent contract vs. accessory obligation, equitable indemnity; for (c): consensus ad idem, operative vs. non-operative mistake, objective vs. subjective theory of contract | Basic doctrinal awareness but superficial treatment; fails to connect doctrines to the specific propositions in the question | No doctrinal framework; descriptive only without analytical depth |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | For (a): UNCITRAL Model Law, English Arbitration Act 1996, French minimal intervention approach; Article 14/19 constitutional right to fair procedure balancing autonomy; for (b): English common law indemnity development; for (c): comparative treatment of mistake in civil law systems | Brief mention of international arbitration trends without systematic comparison; no constitutional dimension | No comparative or constitutional perspective; purely domestic statutory description |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Synthesized conclusion recognizing calibrated autonomy—judicial review as safety valve not parochialism; indemnity as evolving equitable doctrine; mistake doctrine balancing certainty and fairness; practical implications for drafting arbitration clauses, indemnity clauses, and contract formation | Separate conclusions for each part without integration; generic statements without application to contemporary practice | No conclusion or abrupt ending; fails to address the specific propositions in the question |
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
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and Judicial pronouncements : 10…
- Q2 (a) "Justification for introduction of 'plea-bargaining' in India was that it will reduce delay in case of undertrial prisoners in a cheape…
- Q3 (a) "It is the mode of acquiring possession of property of other party with/without his consent, which determines the type of offence again…
- Q4 (a) 'If an enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profits, the cost of any accident ari…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and Judicial pronouncements : 10…
- Q6 (a) Discuss the rules which are taken into account by the courts while awarding damages for the breach of contract. Refer to the relevant s…
- Q7 (a) "The principle of arbitral autonomy is an integral element of the ever evolving domain of arbitration law .... The basis of arbitral au…
- Q8 (a) "There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that 'public interest litigation' is now tending to become 'p…