Q7
(a) "The parties to a contract must either perform or offer to perform their respective promises unless the performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of the Contract Act or of any other law." Explain the statement in reference to relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (20 marks) (b) "Both horizontal and vertical agreements are included in Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 even when horizontal agreements are considered more harmful in comparison to vertical agreements." Discuss. (15 marks) (c) "The 'precautionary principle' and the 'polluter pays principle' are essential principles of the sustainable development." Explain both the principles and also their contribution in sustainable development referring to relevant case-laws. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) "संविदा के पक्षकारों को या तो अपने-अपने वचनों का पालन करना होगा या करने की प्रस्थापना करनी होगी, जब तक कि ऐसे पालन से संविदा विधि या किसी अन्य विधि के प्रावधानों के अधीन अभिमुक्ति या माफी न दे दी गयी हो।" इस कथन की भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम, 1872 के सुसंगत प्रावधानों के संदर्भ में व्याख्या कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "क्षैतिज (हॉरिजॉन्टल) एवं उद्वधिर (वर्टिकल) दोनों प्रकार के करारों को प्रतिस्पर्धा अधिनियम, 2002 की धारा 3 में शामिल किया गया है, हालांकि क्षैतिज करारों को उद्वधिर करारों की तुलना में अधिक हानिकारक माना जाता है।" विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) "'एहतियाती सिद्धांत' एवं 'प्रदूषणक भुगतान सिद्धांत' सतत विकास के मूलभूत सिद्धांत हैं।" दोनों सिद्धांतों की एवं उनके सतत विकास में योगदान की व्याख्या सुसंगत बाद-विधियों के संदर्भ में कीजिए। (15 अंक)
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
The directive 'explain' requires clear exposition of legal principles with supporting provisions and case-law. Structure: Introduction acknowledging the three distinct legal domains → Part (a): ~40% word/time budget (20 marks) covering Sections 37-39, 46-50 ICA 1872 with offer/performance distinction → Part (b): ~30% (15 marks) contrasting horizontal (cartels) vs vertical (resale price maintenance) agreements under Section 3 with judicial interpretation → Part (c): ~30% (15 marks) tracing precautionary principle (Vellore Citizens' Forum) and polluter pays principle (Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action) in sustainable development jurisprudence → Conclusion synthesizing how these principles balance economic activity with regulatory oversight.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Section 37 ICA 1872 as the foundation of absolute obligation; distinction between actual performance (S.38) and offer of performance/tender (S.46-50); consequences of refusal including discharge under S.38(2)
- Part (a): Exceptions to performance—void agreements (S.24), supervening impossibility (S.56), novation/alteration (S.62), remission (S.63) and mutual rescission; effect of tender under S.38(2) when refused
- Part (b): Section 3(1) and 3(3) Competition Act 2002—horizontal agreements (cartels, bid-rigging, market allocation) deemed per se illegal; Section 3(4) vertical agreements (tie-in, exclusive supply, resale price maintenance) judged by 'rule of reason' under appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) test
- Part (b): Judicial rationale for differential treatment—horizontal agreements eliminate competition per se (Excel Corp. v. CCI); vertical agreements may have pro-competitive efficiencies (CCI v. Bharti Airtel); EU/US comparative position on vertical restraints
- Part (c): Precautionary principle—scientific uncertainty does not preclude preventive action; Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) establishing constitutional status under Articles 21, 48A, 51A(g)
- Part (c): Polluter pays principle—absolute liability for environmental damage; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak) and Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat; integration with sustainable development in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Nayudu
- Cross-cutting: Constitutional basis—Article 21 (right to clean environment), Article 48A (State duty), Article 51A(g) (citizen duty); interplay between economic liberalization (Competition Act) and environmental regulation
- Synthesis: How contractual freedom (Part a), market regulation (Part b) and environmental limits (Part c) collectively define sustainable development in Indian law
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precise citation of Sections 37-39, 46-50, 56, 62-63 ICA 1872 for (a); Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 19, 27 Competition Act 2002 for (b); constitutional provisions 21, 48A, 51A(g) and environmental statutes for (c); no conflation of tender vs actual performance or horizontal vs vertical agreement tests | Correct identification of major sections but missing nuances—e.g., omits Section 38(2) consequences, confuses per se vs rule of reason, or cites principles without statutory anchoring | Incorrect section numbers, conflates ICA with Specific Relief Act, misstates Competition Act provisions (e.g., calls vertical agreements per se illegal), or omits statutory basis entirely for environmental principles |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | For (a): cites Kedar Nath v. Gorie Mahomed (tender essentials), Chiranjilal v. Narasu (refusal of performance); for (b): Excel Corp. v. CCI, CCI v. Bharti Airtel, Kingfisher Airlines v. CCI; for (c): Vellore Citizens' Forum, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, M.C. Mehta cases, A.P. Pollution Control Board II with accurate facts and ratio | Mentions landmark cases but with incomplete facts or misstated ratios; e.g., knows Vellore case but not its three-pronged test, or cites competition cases without explaining AAEC application | No case-law or only generic references (e.g., 'Supreme Court in various cases'); incorrect attribution (e.g., attributes polluter pays to Rylands v. Fletcher without distinguishing absolute liability) |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a): explains offer of performance as constructive performance with legal consequences; for (b): analytically distinguishes why horizontal agreements attract per se rule (inherently anticompetitive) while vertical agreements require effects-based analysis; for (c): traces evolution from Stockholm 1972 to Rio 1992 to Indian judicial incorporation, explaining precautionary principle's burden-shifting nature | Describes categories without explaining underlying rationale; states that horizontal agreements are 'more harmful' without analyzing why market structure matters; treats environmental principles as static without evolutionary analysis | Merely lists agreements or principles without doctrinal depth; no explanation of why law differentially treats horizontal/vertical restraints or how precautionary principle modifies traditional burden of proof |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | For (b): compares EU Vertical Block Exemption Regulation or US rule of reason evolution (Leegin) with Indian AAEC approach; for (c): explicit constitutionalization analysis—how Articles 21, 48A, 51A(g) transformed common law principles into fundamental rights; for (a): links contractual obligation to Article 300A (property) and economic justice under Directive Principles | Mentions constitutional provisions without analyzing their interpretive impact; superficial comparison (e.g., 'other countries also have competition laws') without specific doctrinal contrast | No constitutional linkage; treats environmental principles as merely statutory or international law without Indian constitutional absorption analysis; no comparative perspective on competition law |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes three domains into coherent thesis: contract law enables economic exchange, competition law regulates market power to preserve exchange fairness, environmental law imposes sustainability constraints on both—demonstrating integrated regulatory framework for sustainable development; suggests contemporary applications (e.g., platform economy vertical restraints, climate litigation using precautionary principle) | Summarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on 'importance of these laws'; no forward-looking application or policy suggestion | No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body (e.g., says all agreements equally harmful after analyzing distinction); no application to contemporary legal challenges |
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
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements: (a)…
- Q2 (a) "Homicide means killing of a human being by a human being." Explain the statement and distinguish between culpable homicide amounting t…
- 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…
- Q4 (a) "Dacoity is an aggravated form of theft and robbery." Explain with relevant provisions and case-laws. (20 marks) (b) "In case of joint…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements: (a)…
- Q6 (a) "Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent voi…
- Q7 (a) "The parties to a contract must either perform or offer to perform their respective promises unless the performance is dispensed with o…
- Q8 (a) "Right to Information, for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, is an important enactment.…