BLS LLB 5 Years Sem 1 English 1 2025-26 - ATKT Set 2 75/25 Question Paper with Solutions

The man responsible for the damages is Mr Samuel Pickwick, the defendant in the action of Bardell against Pickwick, sued by his former landlady for an alleged breach of promise of marriage.

The text is Charles Dickens's The Pickwick Papers. The words are from the opening of Serjeant Buzfuz's address to the jury, in which he reads out the instructions received from the plaintiff and states her claim at £1,500.

The speaker is Socrates, in Plato's Apology.

The context is the closing part of the trial at Athens in 399 B.C. Socrates has been convicted and sentenced to death, and he is addressing the judges who voted to acquit him. Facing execution, he argues that death is not to be feared, and offers this as the first of two possibilities.

The writer is Dr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, and the words come from his essay "The Joy of Reading".

The person referred to is one of the individuals whose life Kalam narrates in that essay as evidence of what reading and self-education can do. Kalam tells such stories of, among others, V. Kathiresan and Steven, both of whom are set as separate questions in other sittings of this paper, and the line describes the pattern common to them: a person of ordinary circumstances who used his leisure hours to acquire a skill through his own reading and effort, and whose life was redirected by it.

⚠️ A note on precision. The quotation as printed does not name the person, and this volume will not guess which of the two Kalam is describing here. If your prescribed edition names him in the surrounding paragraph, give that name; the substance of the answer, self-education in leisure time changing the course of a life, is the same either way.

Answer: She asked him why he had not sent a friend request to her.

The changes made, and why:

Answer: I shall be supported by Neha in the decision.

I will be supported by Neha in the decision is equally acceptable.

The changes made:

1. The object me becomes the subject, and changes form to I.
2. The verb becomes shall/will be supported: the future form of be plus the past participle.
3. The subject Neha moves into a by-phrase.

The two words of the title

O. Henry's title names the two forces acting on Soapy, the homeless man at the centre of the story, and sets them against each other. The Cop stands for the law in its outward, coercive form: arrest, the magistrate, Blackwell's Island. The Anthem stands for conscience, memory and the possibility of change: the church music that reaches him through an open window.

Why the title fits

1. The plot is Soapy's pursuit of the Cop. Winter is coming and Soapy wants three months' shelter in prison, which he prefers to charity because charity costs him his self-respect. He tries to get arrested by dining without money, breaking a window, causing a disturbance, taking an umbrella and behaving offensively. Every attempt fails.

4. It carries a criticism of policing. The arrest owes nothing to conduct. A shabby man standing still outside a church at night fits an officer's picture of a vagrant, and that is enough.

5. It is deliberately plain. Two ordinary nouns, a policeman and a piece of church music, and only at the close does the reader see they are the two competing claims on a life.

3. The choice of defence. The act is undisputed and was committed in public, so there is no factual defence. Jake pleads insanity under the M'Naghten rule, which is the only doctrine that lets the jury take account of what had been done to the child. Provocation is unavailable, because the killings were planned days after the attack.

4. The expert evidence. Dr W. T. Bass testifies for the defence and Dr Rodeheaver for the State, and the prosecution damages Bass's credibility with a disclosure about his past.

5. The procedural fight. Jake moves unsuccessfully for a change of venue, contests the composition of the jury, and faces District Attorney Rufus Buckley, an able and politically ambitious prosecutor.

6. The pressure outside the courtroom. Organised racist violence surrounds the trial: threats to jurors, an attempt on Jake's life, and the burning of his house. The town has to be policed by the National Guard.

7. The closing argument. Jake abandons legal argument almost entirely, asks the jurors to close their eyes while he narrates what was done to the child, and then asks them to imagine that the girl was white.

8. The verdict. The jury returns not guilty by reason of insanity.

Who he is

Lomax Harder is the central character of Arnold Bennett's short story "Murder!" He is a poet: cultivated, sensitive, softly spoken and physically unimpressive, a man of the study rather than of the world. He is attached to Emily, and it is that attachment which sets the story moving, because Emily is bound to John Franting.

His qualities

1. Refined and intellectual. Harder belongs to the world of books and feeling, and everything in his manner suggests a man incapable of violence. Bennett establishes this carefully so that what follows will be a shock.

2. Quietly and deeply emotional. His love for Emily is genuine, and his hatred of Franting is not hot temper but a settled loathing of a man he regards as a brute.

3. Deliberate and cool-headed. This is the quality the story turns on. Harder does not lash out. He thinks, prepares and acts with a composure more disturbing than rage would be, and afterwards he is meticulous about physical detail.

The idea

For Dr B. R. Ambedkar, a "New Social Order" meant rebuilding Indian society on equality in place of the graded inequality of caste. He held that political independence would change nothing if the social order beneath it remained as it was.

Its requisites

1. Liberty, equality and fraternity together. Not three separate goods but one: liberty without equality gives the rule of the strong, equality without liberty kills initiative, and neither survives without fraternity, which he treated as the real meaning of democracy.

2. The annihilation of caste. Caste is not a division of labour but a division of labourers, arranged in an ascending order of reverence and a descending order of contempt, and it destroys fellow-feeling at the root.

I hold a degree in law from the University of Mumbai and am enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. My work has been chiefly in the areas your organisation serves: I have appeared in matters concerning maintenance and domestic violence, drafted petitions under Article 226 on behalf of resettled families, and conducted legal-awareness camps in municipal schools on the rights of the child.

A non-governmental organisation needs a legal adviser who can do three things: keep the institution itself compliant, in registration, reporting and foreign-contribution requirements; advise programme staff in plain language they can act on; and take a case to court when advice is no longer enough. I believe my experience covers all three, and I am particularly drawn to your work on access to justice for informal-sector workers.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss how I might contribute. My resume is enclosed, and I can be available for an interview at your convenience.

Thanking you,

Model answer

Ananya Iyer
8, Sunrise Apartments, Chembur (East)
Mumbai 400071

11 May 2026

The Assistant Engineer (Water Works)
M/East Ward Office
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
Chembur, Mumbai 400071

Subject: Complaint regarding irregular water supply at Sunrise Apartments, Chembur (East)

Sir/Madam,

I write on behalf of the forty-two households of Sunrise Apartments, Chembur (East), to bring to your notice the irregular water supply in our building over the past six weeks.

Copies of the water bills for the last three months are enclosed. I request your intervention within fifteen days, after which the residents will be constrained to approach the Ward Officer and the Municipal Commissioner.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
Ananya Iyer
(Secretary, Sunrise Apartments Co-operative Housing Society)

Encl.: Water bills for February to April 2026

The Constitution further prohibits discrimination in various forms through Articles 15 and 16, which restrict discrimination by the State in areas like access to public places and employment opportunities. Additionally, Articles 17 and 18 abolish untouchability and titles of nobility, reinforcing social dignity and equality to prevent discrimination and social hierarchy.

The significance of the right to equality lies in its role in fostering a just and inclusive society by preventing unfair treatment and providing equal opportunities. It was established against the backdrop of India's history of caste-based and other social discriminations, aiming to promote fraternity, dignity, and social justice as envisioned in the Constitution's Preamble.

The right to equality not only prohibits arbitrary state actions but also allows affirmative measures, such as reservations, to uplift socially and educationally backward classes, ensuring substantive equality. However, the right to equality is not absolute and permits reasonable classification, provided it meets the criteria of intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the objective sought.

Precis (about 145 words)

The right to equality, guaranteed by Articles 14 to 18 of the Indian Constitution, is the foundation of justice and social fairness in India. Article 14 assures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to citizens and non-citizens alike: the first a negative principle forbidding privilege and arbitrary discrimination, the second a positive one requiring like treatment in like circumstances while permitting reasonable classification. Together they express the rule of law, under which everyone is subject to the ordinary law of the land. Articles 15 and 16 forbid discrimination in access to public places and employment, and Articles 17 and 18 abolish untouchability and titles. The right was framed against India's history of caste and social discrimination, and it permits affirmative measures such as reservation to secure substantive equality. It is not absolute: classification must rest on intelligible differentia bearing a rational nexus to the object sought.

Model answer

Respected Chief Guest, Honourable Justice ____ , our Principal Dr ____ , members of the faculty, distinguished guests, fellow students, ladies and gentlemen:

A very good evening to you all.

I am ____ , student convenor of the Legal Aid Committee, and it is my privilege to welcome you to the inauguration of the Legal Aid Clinic of ____ Law College.

It is therefore a special honour to welcome our Chief Guest, Honourable Justice ____ , whose work in expanding access to justice, and particularly in the field of legal services authorities, is known to every student in this hall. That someone who has done so much to make legal aid a reality should inaugurate our small effort is an encouragement we will not forget.

Sir/Madam, on behalf of our Principal, our faculty, the Legal Aid Committee and the students of this college, I extend to you our warmest welcome, and I invite you to address us.

Thank you.

The bond

Antonio, a Venetian merchant whose capital is at sea, borrows three thousand ducats for three months from Shylock so that his friend Bassanio may court Portia. Shylock lends without interest, and proposes as a "merry sport" that if the money is not repaid on the day, the forfeit shall be a pound of Antonio's flesh, to be cut off nearest his heart. Antonio signs willingly, expecting his ships a month before the bond falls due. The ships are reported lost, the day passes, and Shylock comes to court to claim the forfeit.

1. His demand is legally sound

This must be conceded before anything else, and a good answer concedes it early. The bond was freely entered into by a merchant of full capacity who understood its terms and was warned of them. Shylock asks nothing more than that the court enforce what Antonio agreed. As he tells the Duke, if Venice refuses to enforce a lawful bond because of who holds it, then no contract in Venice is safe, and the city's commercial reputation goes with it.

Shylock's own answer is the famous speech: "Hath not a Jew eyes? ... If you prick us, do we not bleed? ... And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" He is arguing that his cruelty is learned, and taught to him by the people now condemning it.

4. What is wrong with the demand

a. It is not a remedy but a killing. A pound of flesh from the heart is death, and everyone in court knows it. Shylock has stopped being a creditor.

b. He refuses mercy in a court that offers it. Asked what mercy he can expect if he renders none, he answers that he has done no wrong and fears no judgment.

c. He whets his knife in open court, which converts a legal claim into a spectacle of cruelty and loses him the sympathy his grievance might otherwise command.

Who she is

Lady Booby is the wealthy widow of Sir Thomas Booby in Henry Fielding's Joseph Andrews (1742). She is the mistress of Booby Hall, patron of the living held by Parson Adams, and the employer of Joseph Andrews, a handsome young footman. She is the novel's principal antagonist.

Her character

1. Governed by appetite and unwilling to admit it. Within days of her husband's death she is pursuing her own footman. She persuades herself throughout that she is acting from propriety, and Fielding lets the reader see the self-deception she cannot.

2. Proud of rank, and dependent on it. Her rank is the only argument she reliably has. When reasoning fails she falls back on status, as when she tells Parson Adams that she condemns her own humility "for demeaning myself to converse with you so long".

Her function in the novel

Lady Booby is the instrument through which Fielding attacks two things: the hypocrisy of the gentry, who profess a morality they do not practise, and the corruption of local justice, in which law is an errand run by whoever pays for it. Her wealth is what makes Lawyer Scout and Justice Frolick usable, and the novel's most serious passages are those where her private wish becomes, briefly, the law of the parish.

She is also the inversion of a familiar plot. Fielding is writing against Richardson's Pamela, in which a virtuous maidservant resists a predatory master. Here the sexes are reversed: the servant is male, the pursuer a lady of rank, and the joke is that the situation looks absurd only because of who is in which role.

Conclusion

Lady Booby is a comic character with a serious function. Ridiculous in her vacillation and undignified in her pursuit, she is nonetheless dangerous, because she commands the money, the patronage and the legal machinery of the neighbourhood. Fielding's judgment on her is that vanity in a person of rank is not merely laughable, since other people's lives are within its reach.

What she says: that a young woman came to her door in distress and she saw no reason not to take her in for the night; that the child was born in her house; that she saw the infant alive; and that when she came back the young woman and the baby were gone. She also identifies the clothes she had given the child, and to this the prescribed text attaches Hetty's own admission elsewhere, "Those are the clothes. I made them myself."

Its value as evidence: Sarah Stone establishes the two facts on which everything else depends, that there was a living child and that Hetty had it with her when she left. Without her the prosecution has no case at all, because it cannot prove a child existed.

Its character: she is a disinterested witness. She has nothing to gain, no relation to the family and no grievance. She gives her evidence with evident reluctance and compassion, and that reluctance is precisely what makes it credible.

2. John Olding's testimony

Who he is: a labourer, who describes himself simply: "My name is John Olding. I am a labourer."

4. What the trial does not reach

The evidence establishes the physical facts and touches almost nothing of what actually happened. Arthur Donnithorne is not before the court, and neither witness has any occasion to mention him. Hetty's terror, her ignorance, her abandonment and the social ruin that faced an unmarried mother of her class in that period are all outside the issue the court is trying. The witnesses are honest, the procedure is fair, and the verdict follows from the evidence; and the account of events the trial produces is still radically incomplete.

Conclusion

Sarah Stone and John Olding are model witnesses: truthful, disinterested, confined to what they saw, and devastating precisely because they are not trying to be. Their testimony convicts Hetty because it is accurate. Eliot's point is not that the court erred but that a formally correct verdict can be an inadequate response to what really occurred.

2. Religious and philosophical texts, read side by side. Kalam read the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible, and he treats reading across traditions as ordinary rather than remarkable. In the essay's account of his childhood, his father's friendship with the temple priest at Rameswaram is described in the same untroubled way. The point is not comparative religion but that a mind formed by several traditions is larger than one formed by a single one.

3. Tamil poetry and the classical Tamil tradition, including the moral literature he quotes elsewhere throughout his writing. This is the reading that gave him his idiom.

4. Biographies and the lives of scientists and thinkers, which supplied him with models a boy in a small temple town could not otherwise have met.

5. The books lent to him by others. Kalam is careful to record that he could not buy books, and that his reading depended on the generosity of those who lent them, particularly his teacher and the personal libraries he was given access to.

Conclusion

The books Kalam describes are not a reading list but evidence for a proposition: that access to books, more than talent or schooling, decides what a person becomes. He names Man the Unknown most often because it did for him exactly what he claims books do, which is to enlarge the questions he was willing to ask.

1. His defence

Socrates refuses the manner of pleading the court expects. He will not weep, will not produce his family to move the jury, and will not flatter. He answers the charge instead by explaining how he came to be so unpopular: the oracle at Delphi had said no man was wiser than he, and, disbelieving it, he went about questioning those reputed wise and found that they did not know what they claimed to know. His wisdom, he concludes, consists only in knowing that he does not know. The questioning made enemies, and the enemies made the charge.

He denies corrupting the young, arguing that nobody harms his own associates deliberately, since a man who makes those around him worse is injured by them in turn.

2. His refusal to bargain

Offered by implication the chance to escape by promising to give up philosophy, he refuses in the sentence that defines him: "the unexamined life is not worth living." He tells the court he will obey the god rather than them, and will not cease from questioning while he has breath.

From this he draws his conclusion: "no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death." He tells the court he is not angry with those who condemned him, and warns those who did that killing him will not silence criticism, since younger and harsher critics will follow whom he had been restraining.

4. Why he does not fear it

Three reasons run through the passage. First, nobody knows death to be an evil, and to fear what one does not know is precisely the false wisdom he has spent his life exposing. Second, he holds that it is worse to do wrong than to suffer it, so a man who has not done wrong has nothing to fear. Third, he believes the god has permitted this outcome, and the sign that usually opposed him had not opposed him that day.

Conclusion

Socrates' treatment of death is the practical demonstration of everything he has argued. He faces execution by reasoning, in public, immediately after sentence, using the same method that convicted him, and reaches the conclusion that the fear of death is another form of pretending to know what one does not know. He accepts the sentence of a court he believes has decided wrongly, and does not deny its authority.