Law 2025 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: (a) "Doctrine of 'foreseeability', not the 'proximity', is a correct test of 'remoteness'." Explain with the help of case-laws. (10 marks) (b) "The definition of 'public servant' as per the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is only illustrative and not exhaustive." Comment. (10 marks) (c) Describe the salient features of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. (10 marks) (d) Explain the principle of liability of master for the torts committed by his servant. Write case-laws. (10 marks) (e) Under what circumstances can the appropriate government commute the sentence of death and life imprisonment for any other punishment? Discuss. (10 marks)

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 : (a) "'दूरस्थता' का उचित परीक्षण 'पूर्व-कल्पना' का सिद्धांत है, न कि 'सामीप्य' का।" वाद-विधियों की सहायता से व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) "भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 के अनुसार 'लोक सेवक' की परिभाषा केवल व्याख्यात्मक (दृष्टान्तस्वरूप) है, न कि सुविस्तृत है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) सिविल अधिकार संरक्षण अधिनियम, 1955 के मुख्य लक्षणों का वर्णन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) सेवक द्वारा अपकृत्यों के किए जाने पर मालिक के दायित्व के सिद्धांत को समझाइए। वाद-विधियों को लिखिए। (10 अंक) (e) किन परिस्थितियों के अंतर्गत समुचित सरकार मृत्यु दण्डदेश एवं आजीवन कारावास के दण्डदेश का लघुकरण किसी दूसरे दण्ड के लिए कर सकती है? विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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 in approximately 150 words, allocating equal time (~6 minutes) per part. For (a), trace the evolution from Re Polemis to Wagon Mound; for (b), analyze Section 2(c) of PC Act with judicial interpretation; for (c), enumerate key provisions of PCR Act; for (d), apply respondeat superior with leading cases; for (e), discuss Sections 432-433A CrPC with constitutional limitations. Conclude each part with a brief application or contemporary relevance.

Key points expected

  • (a) Evolution of remoteness test: Re Polemis (direct consequence) → Wagon Mound (foreseeability) → Overseas Tankship (reasonable foreseeability); distinction from proximity in negligence
  • (b) Section 2(c) PC Act 1988: inclusive definition covering government servants, statutory corporations, cooperative societies receiving state aid; judicial expansion in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay
  • (c) PCR Act 1955: abolition of untouchability (Article 17), offences (Sections 3-7), enhanced punishment for repeat offenders, protection of civil rights, establishment of Special Courts
  • (d) Vicarious liability: respondeat superior, course of employment test, dual control problem; cases: Mersey Docks v. Coggins, State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi, Century Insurance v. Northern Ireland Road Transport
  • (e) Commutation powers: Section 432 CrPC (appropriate government), Section 433A (14 years minimum for life imprisonment), judicial review limitations (Maru Ram v. Union of India), President/Governor powers under Articles 72/161

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Section 2(c) PC Act for (b); Sections 3-7, 15 for (c) PCR Act; Sections 432, 433A CrPC for (e); correctly identifies Wagon Mound test formulation for (a); accurately states respondeat superior elements for (d)Mentions correct statutes but with section number errors or vague references; conflates similar provisions across statutesIncorrect statute citations, confuses 1988 PC Act with 1947 Act, omits crucial sections like 433A, or cites repealed provisions
Case-law citation20%10Cites Overseas Tankship (Wagon Mound No.1/No.2) for (a); R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay for (b); Mersey Docks v. Coggins, SBI v. Shyama Devi for (d); Maru Ram, Swamy Shraddananda for (e); includes facts and ratioNames cases correctly but without facts or ratio; misses landmark decisions like Wagon Mound No.2Incorrect case names, fictional citations, or complete absence of judicial precedents across all parts
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a), clearly distinguishes foreseeability from proximity as separate inquiries; for (d), analyzes 'course of employment' vs. 'frolic of own'; for (e), explains interplay between executive commutation and judicial sentencingSuperficial treatment of doctrines; conflates foreseeability with proximity; vague on vicarious liability scopeFundamental misunderstanding of remoteness doctrine; treats master-servant liability as strict liability without exceptions
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Links PCR Act to Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) and constitutional morality; for (e), discusses Articles 72/161 vs. Section 432 CrPC; notes judicial review limitations on commutation powersMentions constitutional provisions without integration; superficial reference to fundamental rightsNo constitutional linkage; ignores Article 17 for PCR Act; fails to distinguish presidential pardon from executive commutation
Conclusion & application20%10Each part concludes with contemporary relevance: (a) modern tort development; (b) expanding corruption jurisprudence; (c) ongoing caste discrimination; (d) gig economy liability issues; (e) death penalty debate and mercy jurisprudenceGeneric conclusions without application; repetitive summaries without forward-looking analysisNo conclusion in any part; abrupt endings; or conclusions contradicting the analysis presented

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 2025 Paper II