Law 2025 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Elucidate

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements: (a) "Law as well as justice should try to prevent unjust enrichment." Elucidate the statement in reference to relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (10 marks) (b) "In breach of a sale contract, both the buyer and the seller have remedies against each other." Discuss the statement in reference to relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. (10 marks) (c) "An outgoing partner shares subsequent profits but not the liability for acts of the firm after his retirement." Elucidate the statement referring to relevant provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. (10 marks) (d) "The role of certifying officer is not quasi-judicial but administrative in nature." Explain. (10 marks) (e) "Public interest litigation is a tool to protect fundamental rights of persons or group of persons who are unable to approach the court due to poverty or social and economic conditions." Critically analyze this statement. (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) "विधि एवं न्याय दोनों को ही अन्यायपूर्ण धनी होने (अनजस्ट एनरिचमेंट) को रोकने का प्रयत्न करना चाहिए।" इस कथन का विशदीकरण भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम, 1872 के सुसंगत प्रावधानों के संदर्भ में कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) "किसी विक्रय संविदा के भंग होने पर क्रेता और विक्रेता दोनों के पास एक-दूसरे के विरुद्ध उपचार होते हैं।" इस कथन का विवेचन माल विक्रय अधिनियम, 1930 के सुसंगत प्रावधानों के संदर्भ में कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) "भागीदारी से अलग होने वाला भागीदार पश्चातवर्ती लाभों का भागीदार तो होता है परन्तु उसकी निवृत्ति के पश्चात फर्म द्वारा किए गए कार्यों के लिए दायी नहीं होता है।" इस कथन का विशदीकरण भारतीय भागीदारी अधिनियम, 1932 के सुसंगत प्रावधानों के संदर्भ में कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) "प्रमाणकता अधिकारी की भूमिका न्यायिक-कल्प नहीं, परंतु प्रशासनिक प्रकृति की होती है।" व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) "गरीबी या सामाजिक एवं आर्थिक परिस्थितियों के कारण न्यायालय तक पहुँचने में असमर्थ व्यक्ति अथवा व्यक्तियों के समूह के मूल अधिकारों की संरक्षण हेतु लोकहित वाद एक औजार है।" इस कथन का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए। (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Elucidate

This question asks you to elucidate. 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 'elucidate' demands clear explanation with legal reasoning. For this 5-part question with 150 words each, allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (20% time each). Structure each part as: legal principle → statutory provision → case law → brief application. Begin with (a) Section 70 ICA; (b) Sections 55-61 SOGA; (c) Sections 36-37 IPA; (d) certifying officer under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act; and (e) PIL jurisprudence from S.P. Gupta to recent developments. Conclude each sub-part with a one-line synthesis.

Key points expected

  • (a) Section 70 ICA (obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act) and Section 65 (restoration of advantage under voidable contracts); cite State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal or Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson
  • (b) Seller's remedies: Sections 55-56 (suit for price, damages); Buyer's remedies: Sections 57-61 (damages for non-delivery, specific performance); cite White & Carter (Councils) Ltd. v. McGregor or Bunge v. Tradax
  • (c) Section 36(1) IPA (outgoing partner entitled to share subsequent profits) vs. Section 35 (liability for acts done after retirement unless public notice); cite Cox v. Hickman or Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. A.I. Chopra
  • (d) Certifying Officer under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; administrative function of certifying draft standing orders; contrast with quasi-judicial tribunals; cite Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees
  • (e) PIL origins in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) and expansion through Bandhua Mukti Morcha; epistolary jurisdiction; relaxation of locus standi; critique of judicial overreach vs. access to justice

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Sections 70, 65 ICA for (a); Sections 55-61 SOGA for (b); Sections 35, 36 IPA for (c); Section 3 of IESO Act for (d); Articles 32/14/21 for (e) with correct statutory framework for eachMentions correct Acts but with vague section references or minor numbering errors in 2-3 sub-partsWrong Act citations (e.g., citing IPC instead of ICA) or omits statutory provisions entirely in multiple sub-parts
Case-law citation20%10Cites B.K. Mondal/Fibrosa for (a); White & Carter/Bunge for (b); Cox v. Hickman for (c); Bharat Bank for (d); S.P. Gupta/Bandhua Mukti Morcha/Subhash Kumar for (e) with accurate facts and ratioNames 2-3 correct cases with approximate facts; misses landmark judgments or confuses ratios in 2 sub-partsNo case law cited or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., Donoghue v. Stevenson for contract questions) across multiple parts
Doctrinal analysis20%10Explains restitution principle in (a); concurrent remedies and mitigation in (b); continuing liability vs. profit-sharing dichotomy in (c); administrative/quasi-judicial distinction with reasoned grounds in (d); PIL's transformative role with balanced critique in (e)States legal principles without doctrinal depth; superficial treatment of 2-3 sub-parts lacking analytical rigorMerely describes facts or provisions without any doctrinal unpacking; confuses fundamental legal concepts (e.g., quasi-contract with contract)
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (d), contrasts certifying officer with Industrial Tribunal's quasi-judicial functions; for (e), analyzes PIL as constitutional remedy under Article 32, comparing Indian epistolary jurisdiction with US public interest standing; notes separation of powers concernsBriefly mentions constitutional basis for PIL in (e) but misses comparative dimensions; weak or absent contrast in (d)No constitutional or comparative analysis; treats (d) and (e) as purely statutory questions without broader framework
Conclusion & application20%10Each sub-part ends with crisp synthesis: (a) restitution prevents inequity; (b) balanced remedy structure promotes commercial certainty; (c) profit-liability asymmetry protects retiring partners; (d) administrative nature ensures efficiency; (e) PIL as necessary but circumscribed toolSome sub-parts lack conclusion or have generic endings; misses opportunity to tie parts together thematicallyAbrupt endings without synthesis; or no conclusions in 3+ sub-parts; fails to address the 'elucidate' directive's explanatory demand

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