KSLU Solved Question Papers
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2011 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution 2011 Jun 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 2011 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2011 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2011 Jun 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 2 hours · Total marks 60 · 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
Unit I
(a)Discuss the salient features of adversarial and inquisitorial methods. Explain their advantages and disadvantages. Comment.[9]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the one question both methods answer (how a court should find the facts); the salient features of each, stated as the beliefs each is built on; their advantages and disadvantages measured against five tests of a good trial (accuracy, fairness to the weaker side, speed and cost, public confidence, protection of the accused); a summary table; a comment on India's mixed position (section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023; section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Ram Chander; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh; the Malimath Committee) and on what ADR adds (Byram Pestonji Gariwala); conclusion.
One question, two answers
Every court must decide what happened before it can apply the law. The adversarial method, from the English common law, leaves the facts to a contest between the parties before a neutral judge. The inquisitorial method, from continental Europe, makes finding the facts the judge's own duty. India inherited the first.
Salient features of the adversarial method
Its features follow from four beliefs.
- Truth comes out of a contest. Each side presents its strongest case, and the weaknesses show under cross-examination.
- The parties own the case. They choose the issues, the witnesses and the documents. The court does not look beyond what they bring.
- The judge is an umpire. The judge keeps order, rules on evidence and decides, but does not investigate.
- The trial is oral and concentrated. Evidence is given in open court, under strict rules of admissibility and on a clear burden of proof.
Salient features of the inquisitorial method
Its features follow from four different beliefs.
- Finding the truth is the State's duty. It is not left to the parties' skill or money.
- The judge investigates. In criminal cases an examining judge gathers the evidence before trial, and the trial judge questions the witnesses first.
- The file matters most. Much of the evidence is in a written dossier, and the hearing reviews it.
- Evidence is weighed freely. There are fewer exclusionary rules, and the lawyers mainly comment and add questions.
Advantages and disadvantages, measured against five tests
Test 1: accuracy. The adversarial method tests evidence hard through cross-examination. But it may never hear a witness neither side chose to call. The inquisitorial judge can call anyone, though a judge who forms a view early may look only for proof of it.
Test 2: fairness to the weaker side. In the adversarial method the better-funded side often wins, because results depend on the lawyers' skill. The inquisitorial method narrows that gap, since the judge does the digging. It still depends heavily on the quality of the judge.
Test 3: speed and cost. Adversarial trials are long and costly, with adjournments, long cross-examinations and procedural fights. Inquisitorial proceedings, built on a written file, are often shorter. The investigation stage before trial can itself be slow.
Test 4: public confidence. A judge who stays neutral and decides only on what is proved in open court is seen to be impartial. That is the adversarial method's strongest point. An active judge risks looking like a second prosecutor.
Test 5: protection of the accused. The adversarial method's presumption of innocence, the prosecution's burden and the right to silence give strong protection. The inquisitorial method expects more cooperation from the accused, and its critics say that weakens those protections.
A summary table
| Test | Adversarial | Inquisitorial |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Strong testing; gaps possible | Wider inquiry; risk of early bias |
| Fairness to the weak | Depends on lawyers | Depends on the judge |
| Speed and cost | Slow and costly | Often quicker |
| Public confidence | High: neutral umpire | Lower if the judge seems partisan |
| Protection of the accused | Strong | Weaker, say its critics |
Comment: India's mixed position
India keeps the adversarial base but gives the judge inquisitorial tools. A judge may put any question to any witness at any time to discover the truth (section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023). A criminal court must summon and examine any person whose evidence is essential to a just decision. This is section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
The Supreme Court has said these tools must be used, but within limits. In Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1036, a Sessions Judge had threatened prosecution witnesses with perjury for answers they gave in cross-examination. The Court held that a judge must be a participant, not a spectator, but must never become the prosecutor or frighten witnesses. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, the Best Bakery case, witnesses had turned hostile and every accused had been acquitted. The Court held that a judge who stays a mere "recording machine" fails the victim and society. It ordered a retrial outside Gujarat.
The Malimath Committee (2003) proposed moving further towards the inquisitorial model, with the "quest for truth" as the main aim. The International Commission of Jurists criticised it for weakening the presumption of innocence and the right to silence. Neither model has been adopted in full.
Both methods are court methods, and both produce a winner and a loser. In Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India, AIR 1991 SC 2234, the Supreme Court upheld a compromise decree. In doing so it contrasted the common law tradition of an active Bar and oral hearing with the civil law's inquisitorial tradition. A consent decree, it said, ends a case as surely as a contested one. That is the space ADR fills, by letting the parties settle their own facts and terms.
Conclusion. The adversarial method trusts a contest before a neutral umpire. The inquisitorial method trusts an investigating judge. The first scores higher on public confidence and on protecting the accused. The second scores higher on fairness to the weaker side and often on speed. India has chosen a corrected adversarial system, with judges empowered by section 168 and section 348 and guided by Ram Chander and Zahira Habibulla. ADR offers a third path where neither contest nor inquiry is needed.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 8 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.