KSLU Solved Question Papers
Legal Methods
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 1
2021 Mar Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 1 Legal Methods 2021 Mar Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2021 Mar examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2021 Mar examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2021 Mar examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 80 · 20 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
(a)The governing maxim of 3rd century B.C. in China was that "a single law, enforced by severe penalties, is worth more for the maintenance of order than all words of all sages" - Elucidate[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the meaning of the maxim; its setting in the Legalist school of ancient China (Shang Yang, Han Fei, the Qin dynasty); the opposing Confucian view; what the maxim gets right about law (certainty, uniformity, sanction, order); what it gets wrong (severity, legitimacy, the fall of the Qin, the place of moral teaching); the maxim tested against Indian law; a conclusion.
Meaning of the maxim
The maxim compares two ways of keeping order. One is moral teaching, the "words of sages", which tries to make people good by persuasion and example. The other is law, a fixed rule backed by punishment. The maxim claims that one firm law with a heavy penalty does more for public order than all the wisdom of moral teachers. It reflects a view of human beings as driven by self-interest, who obey from fear rather than from virtue.
Its setting: the Legalist school
In the centuries before China was unified, rival states were at war. A school of thinkers later called the Legalists advised rulers that strict law was the key to a strong, orderly state.
- Shang Yang (died 338 BCE), a statesman of the state of Qin, built its laws on rewards and heavy punishments. The work called the Book of Lord Shang argues that nothing prevents wickedness and crime so well as heavy punishment.
- Han Fei (c. 280 to 233 BCE) developed these ideas. He held that people act from self-interest, so a ruler should govern by clear laws, rewards and punishments, not by appeals to virtue.
- The Qin dynasty. Using Legalist methods, Qin defeated its rivals. Its king declared himself the First Emperor, and the Qin dynasty ruled from 221 to 206 BCE. Its laws were harsh: even minor offences brought hard labour on great public works. Books that opposed Legalism were destroyed.
The opposing view: the sages
The "sages" of the maxim are chiefly Confucius and his followers. Confucius taught that a ruler should guide people by virtue and proper conduct. People governed only by punishments may avoid wrongdoing, he said, but they feel no shame. People guided by virtue develop a sense of shame and correct themselves. The maxim rejects this approach as too weak to keep order.
What the maxim gets right
1. Law is certain. The words of sages differ and can be read in many ways. A single law, stated clearly, tells everyone exactly what is forbidden.
2. Law applies to all alike. A rule binds rich and poor equally, while moral advice binds only those willing to listen.
3. A sanction gives law force. Many people obey only when disobedience has a cost. Austin later defined law as a command backed by a sanction for this reason.
4. Order is the first need. Without basic order, nothing else, not even moral teaching, can flourish. Hobbes made the same point when he described life without a common power as "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short".
What the maxim gets wrong
1. Severity is not the same as effectiveness. Later thinkers such as Beccaria argued that the certainty of punishment deters more than its severity. Very harsh penalties can make juries and officials reluctant to enforce them.
2. Law without legitimacy does not last. The Qin dynasty, the great example of Legalist rule, fell within about fifteen years. The Han dynasty that followed kept a gentler form of the law. Its Emperor Wu (141 to 87 BCE) turned to Confucianism as the official philosophy.
3. Law needs moral support. Most people obey most laws because they accept them as right, not because they fear punishment. Law that conflicts with deep moral beliefs is widely evaded.
4. Fear cannot reach everything. Honesty in daily dealings, care for family and respect for others depend mainly on conscience and custom, not on penalties.
The maxim tested against Indian law
Indian law accepts the maxim's core: law must be clear and must carry sanctions. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 defines offences and their punishments. But Indian law rejects severity as a goal in itself.
- No arbitrary or retrospective punishment. Article 20(1) forbids a penalty greater than the one in force when the offence was committed.
- Fair procedure. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Supreme Court held that a procedure depriving a person of liberty must be "right and just and fair".
- Liberty before trial. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, Krishna Iyer J. stated the rule as "bail, not jail", unless there is a risk of flight, tampering or repeat offences.
- Reform, not only fear. Section 4(f) of the BNS adds community service as a punishment for some minor offences.
Indian law also draws on the "words of sages". Courts rely on respected writers. In Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 830, the Supreme Court adopted Maxwell's textbook statement of the golden rule. The Constitution itself sets out moral values, such as justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, as the aims of law.
Conclusion. The maxim expresses the Legalist faith of ancient China that firm law and heavy penalties keep order better than moral teaching. It rightly stresses that law must be certain, equal and backed by sanctions. But the swift fall of the Qin shows that severity without legitimacy fails. Modern Indian law combines clear law with fair procedure, as Maneka Gandhi and Balchand show. Good order needs both law and the moral values the sages taught.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 1 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.