LLM Group 4 Human Rights Law Protection and Enforcements of Human Rights Solved Question Papers with Answers 2025 to 2026 - Mumbai University | munotes

This folder is the only one in Group IV that holds TWO printed papers for the same subject and the same academic year, and the difference between them matters. Form 16738 was sat on 8 July 2026 and form 16737 on 17 July 2026, both under subject code 26916. They are not a reprint of one another and not an English and Marathi pair: they carry different barcodes, and NOT ONE of the fourteen printed questions is identical between them. Note that the form numbers run backwards against the dates, which is a fact about the press and not about the papers. Both sets are solved here in full and separately.

Four subjects appear on both papers in different forms, and that repetition is the strongest guide to what this subject examines. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM is set twice, each time on a different quotation from Justice Bhagwati: form 16738 quotes him calling public interest litigation a strategic arm of the legal aid movement, and form 16737 quotes him calling the Supreme Court a court for the poor and the downtrodden. AFSPA is set twice, once on its constitutional validity and the safeguards in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109, and once on its provisions against the rule of law. The COURTS AS PROTECTORS is set twice, as Special Courts and statutory Tribunals on one paper and as Civil and Criminal Courts on the other. And INFRASTRUCTURE DISPLACEMENT is a full question on one and a short note on the other.

Those four pairs are the same reading and they are not the same answer. A quotation about legal aid asks for the PROCEDURAL history of public interest litigation, from the relaxation of standing in S.P. Gupta through the letter treated as a petition in Sunil Batra to continuing mandamus in Vineet Narain. A quotation about a court for the downtrodden asks for the SUBSTANTIVE growth of Article 21, from Maneka Gandhi in 1978 to the climate right recognised in M.K. Ranjitsinh on 21 March 2024. Reading them as one question is the commonest way to lose marks on this subject.

Both papers print the source of their own quotations only sometimes, and one of them is worth spotting. Question 6 on form 16737 quotes a passage beginning "Any International Convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights but in harmony with its spirit must be read into these provisions". That is from VISHAKA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, (1997) 6 SCC 241, and naming it in your first line tells the examiner you know what is being asked. Form 16738 is more generous: it prints the citations of Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465 in question 1 and of the Naga People's Movement case in question 4, and both are correct as printed.

These are model answers prepared by munotes. They are a study aid and not official University answer keys, which the University of Mumbai does not publish.