KSLU Solved Question Papers
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2014 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution 2014 Dec 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 2014 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2014 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2014 Dec 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 · 13 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.
Q1Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of inquisitorial system.[9]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what the inquisitorial system is (judge-led inquiry into the truth, as in continental Europe) and how it differs from the adversarial system; its features; inquisitorial elements already in Indian law (section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, section 348 of the BNSS, sections 10(3) and 14 of the Family Courts Act 1984; court commissioners in Bandhua Mukti Morcha); the advantages: search for truth, less dependence on lawyers' skill, protection of the weak, speed and lower cost, a less hostile process; the disadvantages: risk of a judge's bias and pre-judgment, weaker safeguards for the accused (the ICJ's comment on the Malimath Committee), concentration of power, need for trained judges and investigators, unfamiliarity in a common law system; the Indian balance (Ram Chander, Zahira); conclusion.
What the inquisitorial system is
In the inquisitorial system, the judge directs the inquiry into the facts. The judge decides what evidence is needed, questions the parties and witnesses, and builds the case file. The parties and their lawyers play a smaller part. This system is followed in continental Europe, in contrast with the adversarial system of the common law countries. There, the parties present their cases and the judge acts as a neutral umpire.
Its main features
- The judge leads. The court, not the parties, controls the investigation and the order of evidence.
- A written file. Much of the evidence is gathered in writing before the hearing.
- Questioning by the judge. Witnesses are examined mainly by the judge, with little cross-examination by lawyers.
- The aim is truth. The court seeks what actually happened, not merely which side presented the better case.
- Fewer technical rules of evidence. The judge weighs all relevant material freely.
Inquisitorial elements in Indian law
India follows the adversarial model, but it uses inquisitorial tools where needed:
- A judge's questions. A judge may ask any question of any witness at any time to discover relevant facts. This is section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, formerly section 165 of the Evidence Act.
- Calling witnesses. A criminal court may summon or recall any person whose evidence appears essential to a just decision. This is section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
- Family Courts. A Family Court may lay down its own procedure to reach a settlement (section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act 1984). It may receive any report or material that helps it, even if not otherwise admissible (section 14).
- Public interest litigation. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, a letter about bonded labourers in Faridabad stone quarries was treated as a writ petition. The Supreme Court appointed commissioners to inquire into the facts itself. It held that Article 32 prescribes no fixed procedure. Fundamental rights are "too sacred to be ignored or trifled with merely on the ground of technicality".
Advantages
- A better search for truth. The judge can call any evidence the case needs, instead of relying on what the parties choose to produce.
- Less dependence on lawyers' skill. A poor party with a weak lawyer is not lost, because the judge investigates.
- Protection of the weak. Children, workers and victims who cannot present a case well are protected by an active judge.
- Speed and lower cost. A written file and fewer technical objections can shorten trials.
- A less hostile process. Without aggressive cross-examination, witnesses and victims face less hostility. This suits family and child cases.
- Fewer tactical delays. Parties cannot easily stall by withholding evidence or seeking adjournments, since the court controls the pace.
Disadvantages
- Risk of bias. A judge who investigates may form a view early and then look for evidence to confirm it.
- Weaker safeguards for the accused. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Justice Malimath (2003) proposed a shift towards an inquisitorial system. Its main aim was the "quest for truth". The International Commission of Jurists warned that this could weaken the presumption of innocence and the right to silence.
- Concentration of power. One official investigates and decides, so mistakes are harder to detect.
- Need for resources. The system needs many specially trained judges and investigators, and well-kept records.
- Less testing of evidence. Without full cross-examination, false testimony may pass unchallenged.
- Unfamiliar in a common law system. Indian lawyers, laws and courts are built around the adversarial model, so a wholesale change would be disruptive.
The Indian balance
Indian courts take a middle path. In Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191, the Supreme Court said a judge should be "a participant" in the trial, but must not frighten witnesses or act as a prosecutor. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, it ordered a retrial where the trial court had let witnesses be intimidated. It stressed that a judge must actively use powers like section 165 to reach the truth. So India keeps the adversarial structure but expects an active judge.
Conclusion. The inquisitorial system lets the judge lead the search for truth. It reduces dependence on lawyers and protects weak parties, and it can be quicker and less hostile. Its dangers are bias, weaker protection for the accused, as the ICJ warned of the Malimath proposals, and heavy demands on trained judges. India keeps an adversarial base with inquisitorial tools, such as the judge's questions, Family Court procedure and PIL commissions as in Bandhua Mukti Morcha. Ram Chander and Zahira define the limits of that active role.
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.