Law 2025 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q3

(a) Discuss the law of defamation. Is this correct to say that law of defamation gives too much protection to 'reputation' and imposes too a great restriction on the freedom of speech? Comment. (20 marks) (b) "The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium." Illustrate your answer with the help of decided case-laws. (15 marks) (c) Critically examine the provisions relating to few major offences which fall under the 'offences against marriage' in the criminal law of India. Support your answer with case-law. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) मानहानि विधि की विवेचना कीजिए। क्या यह कहना सही है कि मानहानि विधि 'ख्याति' को बहुत अधिक संरक्षण देता है एवं वाक् की स्वतंत्रता पर भी बहुत अधिक प्रतिबंध लगाता है? टिप्पणी कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "अपकृत्य विधि को यूली जस इबी रिमेडियम के सूत्र पर विकसित हुआ कहा जाता है।" अपने उत्तर को निर्णीत वाद-विधियों की सहायता से उदाहरण सहित समझाइए। (15 अंक) (c) भारत के अपराध विधि में 'विवाह के प्रति अपराधों' के अंतर्गत आने वाले कतिपय प्रमुख अपराधों से संबंधित उपबंधों का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। अपने उत्तर का वाद-विधि द्वारा समर्थन कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Law questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' for part (a) requires a balanced exposition with critical analysis, while parts (b) and (c) demand 'illustrate' and 'critically examine' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then tackle each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, ensuring each part has its own analytical conclusion before a final synthesizing conclusion.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Definition and essential elements of defamation (libel and slander), Sections 499-502 IPC and tort principles; distinction between civil and criminal defamation
  • Part (a): Constitutional tension between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 (reputation as part of dignity); analysis of Rajagopal v. State of T.N., Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, and M.N. Roy's dissent in R. Rajagopal
  • Part (b): Meaning and scope of 'ubi jus ibi remedium' (where there is a right, there is a remedy); its role as foundational to tort law development
  • Part (b): Illustration through Ashby v. White (right to vote), Marzetti v. Williams (banker's refusal), and Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (false imprisonment and damages)
  • Part (c): Critical examination of Sections 494-498 IPC: bigamy (Budansaheb v. Fatima), adultery (Joseph Shine v. Union of India striking down S.497), cruelty (S.498A), and enticement (S.498)
  • Part (c): Constitutional validity debates, gender justice perspectives, and judicial trends in decriminalizing marital offences

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of IPC Sections 499-502 for (a), correct statement of the maxim and its legal implications for (b), and accurate referencing of Sections 494, 497 (as struck down), 498A, 498 for (c); no conflation of civil and criminal provisionsGenerally correct section numbers with minor errors; some mixing of civil and criminal defamation elements; broad awareness of marriage offence sections without specificityIncorrect or missing section references; confusion between tort and IPC provisions; inability to identify relevant statutory provisions for any part
Case-law citation20%10For (a): R. Rajagopal, Subramanian Swamy, and Shreya Singhal; for (b): Ashby v. White, Marzetti v. Williams, Bhim Singh v. State of J&K; for (c): Joseph Shine, Budansaheb v. Fatima, Sarla Mudgal; all with correct facts and ratioMention of landmark cases without accurate facts or ratio; some case names correct but principles misstated; missing recent judgments like Joseph ShineNo case-law or entirely incorrect case names; inability to connect cases to legal principles; fabricated case citations
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): nuanced analysis of truth, fair comment, privilege defenses and their adequacy; for (b): clear exposition of how the maxim transformed common law remedies; for (c): critical evaluation of patriarchal foundations and reform needs in marriage offencesBasic description of doctrines without critical depth; standard explanation of defenses in defamation; superficial treatment of ubi jus ibi remedium; descriptive rather than critical approach to marriage offencesNo doctrinal engagement; mere listing of elements without analysis; failure to identify tensions between reputation and free speech, or between traditional marriage laws and constitutional values
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Article 19(1)(a) vs. Article 21 analysis with reference to American actual malice standard (New York Times v. Sullivan); for (b): comparison with civil law systems lacking this maxim; for (c): constitutional morality under Navtej Singh Johar applied to marriage offencesMention of constitutional articles without developed argument; awareness of foreign precedents but no application; basic reference to fundamental rights in marriage contextNo constitutional or comparative perspective; failure to recognize the fundamental rights dimension in any part; purely black-letter law approach
Conclusion & application20%10Balanced conclusion on whether defamation law needs reform (a); assessment of maxim's continuing relevance in modern tort law (b); forward-looking suggestions on decriminalization and gender-just reforms for marriage offences (c); integrated final conclusion if word limit permitsSeparate conclusions for each part without synthesis; descriptive summaries rather than evaluative conclusions; no policy recommendations or reform suggestionsMissing conclusions for one or more parts; abrupt ending without synthesis; no application of analysis to contemporary legal developments

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