KSLU Solved Question Papers
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2015 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution 2015 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 2015 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2015 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2015 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.
Q1Explain the advantages of Adversarial method of administration of Justice.[9]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the adversarial method in brief (two sides present their cases; a neutral judge decides on the evidence) and its contrast with the inquisitorial method; the advantages, each with its legal anchor: a neutral decision-maker; evidence tested by cross-examination (section 142 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023); clear burden of proof and the presumption of innocence (section 104); legal representation and fair trial (Article 22(1); Suk Das); participation and dignity of the parties; open hearings and reasoned, appealable judgments (section 366 of the BNSS); precedent and the growth of law; a check on State power; suitability for disputes that need a court (Afcons); why ADR complements rather than replaces it (Byram Pestonji Gariwala); conclusion.
The adversarial method in brief
In the adversarial method, each party prepares and presents its own case: its witnesses, documents and arguments. A neutral judge listens, applies the rules of procedure and evidence, and decides. India inherited this method from the English common law. It differs from the inquisitorial method of continental Europe, where the judge leads the inquiry into the facts.
Alternative dispute resolution grew because the adversarial method is slow and costly. But the method has real strengths, which explain why it remains the core of Indian courts.
Advantages
1. A neutral decision-maker. The judge does not investigate or take sides. Because the judge has no stake in the case, the losing party can accept that the result was not prejudged.
2. Evidence is tested by cross-examination. Every witness may be examined by the party calling him and then "by the adverse party", which is cross-examination (section 142 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023). Cross-examination exposes mistakes, gaps and lies. It is the court's main safeguard against false or careless testimony.
3. A clear burden of proof. "Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability" dependent on facts must prove them (section 104). In criminal cases the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent, and that protects the weaker party against the State.
4. Lawyers on both sides. Each party can be represented by a trained advocate who knows the law and can test the other side's case. Article 22(1) guarantees an arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer. In Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 991, a poor accused tried without a lawyer could not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding free legal aid a fundamental right. The adversarial method works fairly only when both sides are properly represented, and the law now insists on that.
5. Participation and dignity. Each party tells its own story in its own way and hears the other side's case. This gives a sense of being heard, which supports respect for the result.
6. Open courts and reasoned judgments. A criminal court "shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public generally may have access" (section 366(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023). Civil courts too sit in public. Judges give written reasons, and an appeal lies to a higher court. Public hearing and reasons allow mistakes to be corrected and keep judges accountable.
7. Precedent and the growth of law. Contested cases produce reported judgments. Higher court decisions bind lower courts and settle the law for everyone. A private settlement, by contrast, binds only its parties.
8. A check on State power. Where the State is a party, an independent judge hearing both sides prevents the executive from being judge in its own cause. Constitutional rights are enforced in this way.
9. Suitable for disputes that need a court. Some cases should not be settled privately. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co (P) Ltd, decided on 26 July 2010, the Supreme Court listed cases normally unsuitable for ADR. They include serious allegations of fraud, forgery or coercion, election disputes, claims needing the court's protection, and criminal prosecutions. For these, a full adversarial trial is the right forum.
10. Finality and enforcement. A decree after a contest binds the parties and is executed by the State's machinery. In Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India, AIR 1991 SC 2234, the Supreme Court contrasted the common law tradition of an active Bar and oral hearing with the civil law's inquisitorial methods. It still recognised that a consent decree ends litigation as firmly as one passed after a contest. The court system gives both kinds of decree their force.
Advantages in perspective
These advantages are real, but they come at a cost in time and money. That is why the law now combines the adversarial method with ADR. Courts must consider settlement under section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and keep the full trial for disputes that need it.
Conclusion. The adversarial method gives a neutral judge, evidence tested by cross-examination and a fixed burden of proof. Both sides are represented by lawyers, which Suk Das made a right for the poor. It also brings open and reasoned judgments, precedent, and a check on State power. It suits disputes that must not be settled privately, as Afcons recognises. Its slowness has led to ADR, but its safeguards keep it the foundation of justice in India.
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.