KSLU Solved Question Papers
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2014 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution 2014 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 2014 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2014 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 2014 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
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Questions. (2) Figures to the right indicate marks.
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)Explain in brief inquisitorial and adversarial system of justice.[9]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the two systems in one line each and where they come from (common law; continental civil law); a point-by-point comparison: who controls the case, who gathers the evidence, how witnesses are examined, rules of evidence, the form of the trial, the aim, the role of lawyers, the accused's protections; the contrast drawn by the Supreme Court in Byram Pestonji Gariwala; India's mixed position (section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023; section 348 of the BNSS; Ram Chander); why the comparison matters for ADR (section 89 CPC); a table; conclusion.
The two systems
The adversarial system treats a case as a contest between two parties before a neutral judge. Each side gathers and presents its own evidence and argument, and the judge decides on what is placed before the court. It grew up in England and spread to common law countries, including India.
The inquisitorial system treats a case as an official inquiry into the truth, led by the judge. The judge directs the investigation, questions the witnesses and builds the record. It is the system of continental Europe, rooted in the civil law tradition.
Point-by-point comparison
1. Control of the case. In the adversarial system the parties decide what issues to raise and what evidence to call. In the inquisitorial system the judge decides what must be investigated.
2. Gathering evidence. Adversarial: each party collects its own evidence, and the police and prosecution do so in criminal cases. Inquisitorial: a judicial officer supervises the gathering of evidence and keeps an official file.
3. Examining witnesses. Adversarial: witnesses are examined in chief by the party calling them and cross-examined by the other side. Inquisitorial: the judge questions witnesses, and lawyers play a supporting part.
4. Rules of evidence. Adversarial: strict rules decide what may be admitted, partly to protect a lay jury or a passive judge from unreliable material. Inquisitorial: the judge evaluates all relevant material more freely.
5. Form of the trial. Adversarial: an oral, public hearing where the evidence is tested live. Inquisitorial: much of the work is done in writing, through the file, before and outside the hearing.
6. The aim. Adversarial: a fair contest in which the party who proves its case wins. Inquisitorial: discovery of what actually happened.
7. Role of lawyers. Adversarial: central. Outcomes can depend on the skill of counsel. Inquisitorial: secondary. Counsel assists the court and guards the client's rights.
8. Protection of the accused. Adversarial: strong emphasis on the presumption of innocence, the burden on the prosecution and the right to silence. Inquisitorial: the accused is more often questioned as a source of information, so these protections can be weaker.
The two traditions in the Supreme Court's words
In Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India, AIR 1991 SC 2234, the Supreme Court contrasted the two traditions. The common law relies on an active Bar and oral hearing, while the civil law follows inquisitorial methods. It upheld a compromise signed by counsel, recognising counsel's central place in the Indian, adversarial, system.
India's mixed position
India is adversarial in structure, but its judges are not passive. A judge may ask any witness any question to discover relevant facts (section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023). A criminal court may summon or recall any witness whose evidence is essential to a just decision. This is section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. In Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191, the Supreme Court said the judge should be a participant, not a spectator. But the judge must not act as a prosecutor or intimidate witnesses.
Why it matters for ADR
The slowness and expense of adversarial litigation is one reason for ADR. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure now requires courts to consider sending cases to arbitration, conciliation, mediation or Lok Adalat. Some ADR forums, such as Family Courts and Permanent Lok Adalats, borrow inquisitorial methods. They allow informal procedure and active fact-finding by the presiding officer.
A table
| Point | Adversarial | Inquisitorial |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | English common law | Continental civil law |
| Control | Parties | Judge |
| Evidence | Gathered by parties | Gathered under the judge |
| Witnesses | Cross-examination | Judge's questions |
| Evidence rules | Strict | Flexible |
| Trial | Oral, continuous | Largely written |
| Aim | Fair contest | Truth |
| Lawyers | Central | Supporting |
Conclusion. The adversarial system leaves the case to the parties before a neutral judge. The inquisitorial system puts the judge in charge of finding the truth. They differ in control, evidence-gathering, the examination of witnesses, evidence rules, the form of trial and the role of lawyers. Byram Pestonji Gariwala recognises India's adversarial tradition. Indian law adds inquisitorial tools such as the judge's power of questioning, used within the limits drawn in Ram Chander.
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.