BLS LLB 5 Years Sem 5 Legal Language 2021-22 Question Paper with Solutions

The answer is (d) It was said that he was innocent.

The object of the verb said is the whole noun clause "that he was innocent". A change of voice moves that object into the subject position, and because a clause cannot comfortably stand at the head of a sentence, English supplies the anticipatory "it": It was said (by them) that he was innocent. The tense is preserved, said becoming was said, and the subordinate clause is untouched.

Why the others are wrong, and one qualification:

• (b) He was innocent said by them is not a sentence. It has no construction at all.

The answer is (b) That; had visited.

Two rules operate together.

The first blank takes "that", because tell introduces reported speech through the conjunction that, which begins the noun clause serving as its object. Saying is a participle and cannot join two clauses.

The second blank takes "had visited" because of the sequence of tenses in reported speech: when the reporting verb is in the past (told), the verb in the reported clause moves one step back in time. A present perfect (has visited) becomes a past perfect (had visited).

Why the others are wrong:

• (a) That; has visited gets the conjunction right and the tense wrong. She told me that she has visited mixes a past reporting verb with a present perfect and breaks the sequence of tenses.

The answer is (d) America is richer than other countries.

The printed sentence is in the positive degree, in the "very few ... as ... as" frame. Changing it to the comparative requires three things: the subject of the comparison moves to the front (America), the adjective takes the comparative form (richer), and the class it is compared with follows than.

Why the others are wrong:

• (a) Very few countries are rich than America is ungrammatical. Than requires a comparative form, so it would have to be richer than, and even corrected it says the opposite of the original.

The answer is (b) Prohibition.

Prohibition is issued by a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal forbidding it to continue proceedings in excess of its jurisdiction. It is preventive: it stops the inferior court from doing what it has no power to do, and it can therefore be issued only while the proceedings are still pending.

Why the others are wrong:

• (a) Certiorari also polices jurisdiction, but it is curative, not preventive. It is issued after the inferior court has passed its order, and it quashes that order. The difference between prohibition and certiorari is entirely one of timing.

The answer is (a) In law not the remote but the proximate cause is looked at.

This is the literal and complete translation, and it is the only option that renders the contrast the maxim actually draws. In jure means "in law"; non remota causa means "not the remote cause"; sed proxima means "but the proximate"; spectatur means "is looked at" or "is regarded".

Why the others are wrong:

• (b) is true as far as it goes, but it is incomplete. It states half the maxim and drops the contrast with the remote cause, which is the whole point of it.
• (c) states the opposite of the maxim.
• (d) is too narrow. The maxim is a general principle of causation running through contract, tort, insurance and criminal law; it is not confined to negligence.

The answer is (a) Death in Custodial Lockup.

D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, (1997) 1 SCC 416, arose from a letter written to the Chief Justice of India in 1986 by D. K. Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, drawing attention to newspaper reports of deaths in police lock-ups and in custody. The letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32. The Supreme Court held that custodial torture violates Article 21, laid down eleven guidelines to be observed in every arrest and detention, and held that compensation may be awarded in public law, to which sovereign immunity is no defence.

Why the others are wrong, and what each one is:

• (b) Sexual harassment at the workplace is Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, decided the same year, which laid down the Vishaka Guidelines, since replaced by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The answer is (c) Vis major or Damnum fatale.

An Act of God, in law, is an event due to natural causes, directly and exclusively, without human intervention, which could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, pains and care reasonably to be expected. Earthquakes, extraordinary rainfall, lightning and tempests are the standard instances.

It has two Latin names, and both are in use:

• Vis major, "a greater force", the term used in Roman law and in the English common law; and
• Damnum fatale, "loss by fate", the term used in Scots law.

Because both name the same thing, options (a) and (b) are each incomplete and (c) is the answer.

The answer is (c) Friend of the Court.

Amicus curiae is Latin for "friend of the court". It describes a person, usually a senior advocate, who is not a party to the proceeding and who is asked by the court, or permitted by it, to assist the court on a question of law or fact.

Why the others are wrong: (a) and (d) guess at the sense of amicus from the English word amicable and ignore curiae entirely; (b) confuses amicus with America, which has no connection with it.

The answer is (b) Respondeat superior.

Respondeat superior means "let the superior answer" or "let the principal be liable". It is the maxim on which vicarious liability rests: a master is answerable for a tort committed by his servant in the course of employment, and is liable jointly with the servant, although the master himself is entirely without fault.

Why the others are wrong:

• (a) Caveat emptor, "let the buyer beware", is a rule of the law of sale: the buyer must satisfy himself as to the quality and fitness of what he buys, subject now to wide statutory exceptions in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The answer is (a) Jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is the extent of the authority of a court to hear and decide a matter and to grant relief. It is conferred by statute or by the Constitution and cannot be created by the consent of the parties, nor taken away by their agreement.

Why the others are wrong:

• (b) Boundaries is not a legal term of art. The territorial dimension of jurisdiction exists, but "boundaries" does not name the concept.
• (c) Limitation is the period of time within which a suit, appeal or application must be brought, governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. It restricts when a court may be approached, not what it has power to decide.
• (d) Complaint is the document or allegation by which a criminal proceeding is set in motion before a magistrate. It is a pleading, not a power.

The answer is (c) Injunction.

An injunction is an order of a court directing a person to refrain from doing an act, or to do a particular act. The first is a prohibitory injunction and the second a mandatory injunction, and the definition in the question names both, which is what makes injunction the answer rather than any of the others.

Injunctions are governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 36 to 42, and, for temporary injunctions, by Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Why the others are wrong:

• (a) Certiorari is one particular writ, which quashes an order of an inferior court or tribunal. It does not direct a person to do or refrain from an act.

The answer is (c) Written statement.

In a civil suit the plaintiff files a plaint, and the defendant files a written statement, which is his answer to it. Both are pleadings within the meaning of Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that "pleadings" means plaint or written statement. The written statement is governed by Order VIII.

Why the others are wrong:

• (a) Plaint is the plaintiff's pleading, the document by which a suit is instituted, setting out the facts constituting the cause of action and the relief claimed.
• (b) Affidavit is a statement of facts sworn on oath. It is evidence, not a pleading, and it is used to support an application, not to answer a suit.
• (d) Complaint belongs to criminal procedure. It is an allegation made to a magistrate with a view to his taking action against a person, and it has no place in a civil suit.

The answer is (a) Ms. Indira Jaising.

The Lawyers Collective is a legal aid and human rights organisation founded in 1981 by the senior advocates Indira Jaising and Anand Grover, which published a monthly magazine of the same name. Indira Jaising was its editor. She was later the first woman to be appointed Additional Solicitor General of India, and was closely associated with the drafting of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Why the others are wrong:

• (b) Manupatra is not a person. It is one of the two principal Indian online legal databases, the other being SCC Online.
• (d) Mr. V. R. Manohar was a distinguished senior advocate of Nagpur, Advocate General of Maharashtra, and the editor of later editions of Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, the standard commentaries on the Penal Code and the Law of Evidence. He was not connected with this magazine.
• (c) Mr. Tipugade is not associated with it.

The answer is (c) Rationale of the court.

Ratio decidendi means literally "the reason for deciding". It is the principle of law on which the decision is based, the legal rule that was necessary to the court's conclusion on the facts before it. It is the ratio, and only the ratio, that is binding as precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis, and, for the Supreme Court, under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Why the others are wrong:

• (a) Friend of the court is amicus curiae.
• (b) Property divided by ratio reads the Latin ratio as though it meant an arithmetical proportion. It does not; here it means reason.
• (d) Judges expression is closer to obiter dictum, an observation made by the way.

Effect. Once the maxim applies, the evidential burden shifts: the defendant must show that the accident happened without negligence on his part, and if he offers no explanation the court may infer negligence and find for the plaintiff.

Cases:

• Byrne v. Boadle (1863): a barrel of flour rolled out of a first-floor window of the defendant's warehouse and struck the plaintiff. Held, the plaintiff need not prove how it came to fall; barrels do not roll out of warehouses unless somebody is negligent.
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966): the Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk, eighty years old and past the life of its mortar, collapsed and killed several people. The Supreme Court applied the maxim, the structure being in the exclusive control of the Corporation and its collapse not an ordinary event.
• Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (1977): the Supreme Court applied the maxim to a motor accident in which the vehicle left the road and struck a tree.

• Subject-matter bias: a direct interest in the outcome or in the issue.
• Departmental or policy bias, and the problem of the person who investigates and then adjudicates. A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), where a member of the selection board was himself a candidate, is the leading Indian authority, and it is also the case that abolished the old distinction between judicial and administrative functions for this purpose.

The governing statement is from R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." The test is not whether the decision-maker was in fact biased but whether there was a real likelihood, or a reasonable apprehension, of bias.

2. Audi alteram partem: hear the other side. No one shall be condemned unheard. This rule has content, and the content is what earns the marks:

• Notice of the case, sufficiently specific and in time to allow an answer;
• an opportunity to be heard, orally where the matter requires it;

Exceptions. Natural justice is excluded or curtailed where there is a genuine emergency requiring immediate action, such as the seizure of contaminated food; where the statute expressly excludes it, subject to Article 14; where confidentiality or state security is involved; where compliance is impracticable, as with very large numbers of persons; in matters of academic evaluation; and where a hearing would be a useless formality because the outcome could not have been different, though Indian courts apply that last exception narrowly.

3. It closes with a "Great Indians" feature, short profiles of Indians who deserve to be better known, characteristically including a gallantry-award winner from the armed forces alongside figures from public life and social work.
4. It carries no crime reporting or film coverage, and is not tied to a political party. It is closer to a journal of opinion than to a news weekly.
5. It is addressed to the general educated reader, in plain English, and is used in schools and colleges for exactly that reason.

4. It is a principal source of law. In a common law system judge-made law is real law, and the reports are where it is stated. Much of Indian tort law, and much of constitutional and administrative law, exists only in the reports.
5. It makes the judiciary accountable. A judgment that is published can be criticised, by the bar, by academics and by the press, and a judge writes knowing that it will be.
6. It is the material of legal education and research. Every case in this paper, D. K. Basu, Vishaka, Ajay Hasia, Mohori Bibee, is known to you because it was reported.

What a properly reported case contains, and why each part is there: the court and judges, which fix the authority of the decision; the parties and date; catchwords and a headnote, written by the editor as a finding aid; the cases cited; the counsel who appeared; the facts and procedural history; the judgments verbatim, including any dissent; and the order with costs.

3. It creates legal awareness in the citizen. A right nobody knows about is not exercised. Legal literacy programmes, and the popular legal writing represented by magazines such as Law Teller, are extensions of legal education outside the classroom, and they matter most to the people least able to buy advice.

4. It is training in a method, not merely in a body of rules. What a law course teaches is how to read a difficult text, how to distinguish a fact from an inference, how to argue in the alternative, and how to state a case against oneself before answering it. Those skills outlast every statute on the syllabus, and they are why law graduates are found in journalism, administration, business and politics as often as in court.

5. It is a discipline of language. A lawyer's product is prose: a plaint, an opinion, a contract, a judgment. A subject like this one exists because a lawyer who cannot write clearly cannot practise safely, and because ambiguity in a document is where litigation begins.

The problems worth naming. The quality of teaching and infrastructure varies enormously between institutions; there are far more law colleges than there are teachers competent to staff them; the emphasis in many places is still on memorising rather than on reasoning and drafting; practical training, drafting, client interviewing, negotiation and advocacy, is often reduced to a formality; and the gap between the elite national law universities and the ordinary affiliated college is wide and growing.

Conclusion. Legal education is not vocational training for one profession; it is the maintenance of the machinery by which a constitutional democracy governs itself. Its importance is measured not by the number of graduates it produces but by whether the people it produces can read a statute honestly, argue a case fairly, and write a sentence that means one thing.

1. Duty of the employer. It is the duty of every employer, in the public and the private sector, to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of complaints.
2. Definition. Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexually determined behaviour, whether direct or by implication, comprising physical contact and advances; a demand or request for sexual favours; sexually coloured remarks; showing pornography; and any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
3. Preventive steps. Express prohibition of sexual harassment must be notified, published and circulated in appropriate ways; the conduct rules of government servants must include prohibition and provide penalties; standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, must be similarly amended in private employment; and working conditions must not be hostile to women.

9. Awareness. Awareness of the rights of female employees must be created by prominently notifying the guidelines.
10. Third parties. Where an act of sexual harassment is committed by a person other than an employee, the employer must take necessary and reasonable steps to assist the affected person.
11. Government action. The Central and State Governments should consider adopting suitable measures, including legislation, to ensure that private employers observe the guidelines.

The Court declared these binding under Article 141 and directed that they be observed "until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field".

Read as a whole: the case of Ajay Hasia against Khalid Mujib, decided by the Supreme Court of India and reported at page 487 of the 1981 volume of the All India Reporter. Being a Supreme Court decision, it binds every court in India under Article 141 of the Constitution.

(a) Why does comparison between two countries become difficult?

Comparison is difficult because many factors come into play which differ from one country to another. The passage lists them: size, culture, history, geography, natural endowments, geopolitics and internal polity.

The passage adds a specific illustration of the difficulty. Some goals can be achieved by smaller countries, but smaller countries sometimes find it difficult to embark upon certain big technological plans even when they have the funds, because the size of their domestic market is too small. So a comparison that looks only at money, and ignores the scale of the market, will mislead. It is for this reason that the author says that among the bigger countries the closest comparison to India is China, "though there are many crucial differences".

(b) What is the goal of China to be accomplished by the middle of the 21st century?

The Chinese vision is to prepare the country for entry into the ranks of the mid-level developed nations by the middle of the twenty-first century.