Law 2025 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q6

(a) "Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void." Discuss the statement along with the circumstances in which such agreements have been considered valid by the courts. (20 marks) (b) "Any departure from the terms of the offer or the addition of any qualification while accepting the offer vitiates the acceptance unless it is agreed to by the offeror." Elucidate the statement in the light of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and established principles. (15 marks) (c) "The law draws a distinction between coercion and undue influence. Coercion in the execution of a contract occurs when there is a physical compulsion of the person. In contrast, undue influence may exist without violence or threats of violence against the victim." In the light of this statement, distinguish between coercion and undue influence referring to relevant provisions and presumptions raised under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "हर करार जिससे कोई व्यक्ति किसी प्रकार की विधिपूर्ण बृति, व्यापार या कारोबार करने से अवरुद्ध किया जाता हो, उस विस्तार तक शून्य है।" इस कथन की विवेचना उन सभी परिस्थितियों, जिनमें न्यायालयों ने ऐसे करारों को वैध करार दिया हो, के साथ कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "प्रतिग्रहण के समय प्रस्थापना की शर्तों को स्वीकार नहीं करना या उसमें कोई विशेषता जोड़ना प्रतिग्रहण को दोषपूर्ण कर देता है, जब तक कि प्रस्थापक उसे स्वीकार न कर ले।" भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम, 1872 के प्रावधानों तथा स्थापित सिद्धांतों के आलोक में इस कथन का विशदीकरण कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) "विधि द्वारा प्रपीड़न एवं असम्यक् असर में विभेद किया गया है। किसी संविदा के निष्पादन में प्रपीड़न तब होता है जब किसी व्यक्ति पर शारीरिक बल (हिंसा) का प्रयोग होता है। इसके विपरीत, असम्यक् असर पीड़ित के विरुद्ध हिंसा या हिंसा की धमकियों के बिना भी हो सकता है।" इस कथन के आलोक में भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम, 1872 के सुसंगत प्रावधानों एवं उक्त उपधारणाओं के संदर्भ में प्रपीड़न एवं असम्यक् असर में भेद 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 critical examination with arguments for and against, while 'elucidate' in (b) and the implicit 'distinguish' in (c) demand clear exposition with illustrations. Allocate approximately 40% of time and word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief introduction, then address each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings, ensuring integration of sections, case law, and judicial reasoning throughout, followed by a synthesizing conclusion.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the general rule of voidness; three statutory exceptions (sale of goodwill, partnership agreements under Sections 11(2) and 36, and trade combinations); judicially evolved exceptions including restraints incidental to employment (Nordenfelt, Brahmo Samaj) and reasonable territorial limitations
  • Part (a): Application of 'public policy' and 'reasonableness' tests in post-contractual restraints; distinction between partial and total restraints; leading cases including Madhub Chander v. Raj Coomar, Brahmo Samaj v. Keshub Chunder Sen, and Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning
  • Part (b): Section 2(b) definition of acceptance; the 'mirror image rule' under English law and its adoption in India; distinction between acceptance and counter-offer per Section 2(b) read with Section 7; effect of qualified acceptance under Section 7(2)
  • Part (b): Judicial interpretation in cases like Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram, Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh; distinction between material and immaterial variations; the 'last shot' rule and 'knock-out' rule in battle of forms; communication of acceptance under Section 4
  • Part (c): Section 15 (coercion: threat of forbidden act to IPC or unlawful detention) vs. Section 16 (undue influence: dominant position abuse); physical compulsion vs. mental pressure; presumption of undue influence under Section 16(2) in fiduciary relationships (parent-child, guardian-ward, doctor-patient, spiritual adviser)
  • Part (c): Leading cases on coercion: Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti, Chikham Amiraju v. Seshamma; on undue influence: Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pandey, Subhas Chandra v. Ganga Prasad, Allcard v. Skinner; effect on contract under Section 19 and 19A (voidable, not void)
  • Part (c): Distinction in remedy and burden of proof—coercion requires proof of threat, undue influence shifts burden in specified relationships; relevance of independent advice in rebutting presumption

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Sections 27, 2(b), 7, 4, 15, 16, 19, 19A with correct sub-sections; accurate reproduction of statutory exceptions to Section 27; correct distinction between void (Section 27) and voidable (Sections 19, 19A) consequencesCorrect identification of main sections but missing sub-sections or conflating 19 and 19A; general awareness of exceptions without precise statutory basisIncorrect section numbers, confusing coercion with fraud, misstating Section 27 as absolute without exceptions, or claiming undue influence makes contracts void rather than voidable
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Nordenfelt, Brahmo Samaj, Madhub Chander, Niranjan Shankar Golikari, V.N. Deshpande; For (b): Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram, Tarsem Singh, Powell v. Lee; For (c): Ranganayakamma, Chikham Amiraju, Mannu Singh, Subhas Chandra, Allcard v. Skinner, Ladli Prasad v. Karnal Distillery—cases matched correctly to legal propositionsMention of leading cases without accurate facts or legal principles; some cross-mixing of cases across sub-partsNo case citations or entirely incorrect attribution of principles to cases; citing foreign cases without Indian application
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Critical analysis of 'public policy' as evolving concept, tension between contractual freedom and economic liberty; For (b): Analysis of 'mirror image rule' rigidity vs. commercial realities, UCC/UNIDROIT comparative perspective; For (c): Theoretical basis of vitiated consent—autonomy vs. protection, relational contract theory in undue influenceDescriptive treatment of doctrines without critical engagement; awareness of rules but no exploration of underlying policyPurely mechanical listing of elements without doctrinal coherence; failure to distinguish the theoretical bases of different vitiating factors
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Article 19(1)(g) right to trade and profession as constitutional foundation of Section 27, R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla ratio; For (b): UNIDROIT Principles Article 2.1.11, CISG Article 19 on battle of forms; For (c): Position under English Law (actual vs. presumed undue influence per Royal Bank of Scotland v. Etridge), Law Commission of India recommendationsMention of Article 19(1)(g) without elaboration; general awareness of English law differences without specific authorityNo constitutional or comparative dimension; treating Indian law as isolated from broader legal developments
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizing conclusion on balance between contractual autonomy and protection; contemporary application to non-compete clauses in employment contracts, startup ecosystem; practical guidance on drafting valid restraints; integrated conclusion showing interconnection between consent defects and restraint doctrinesSeparate conclusions for each sub-part without synthesis; generic concluding statements without contemporary relevanceNo conclusion or abrupt ending; failure to address all three sub-parts in conclusion; missing application to modern commercial contexts

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