Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Penal Laws
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Group 5 Criminal Law and Criminal Administration
2024-25 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLM Group 5 Criminal Law and Criminal Administration Penal Laws 2024-25 Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU LLM student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 13 August 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 the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, 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 the University of Mumbai at the 2024-25 examination.
The law in these answers is stated as at August 2026, and four changes date most textbooks on this subject. The Indian Penal Code was repealed on 1 July 2024 by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced sedition with section 152; section 124A has been in abeyance since 11 May 2022 and the Supreme Court agreed on 8 August 2025 to examine section 152 itself. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was finally omitted from the statute book by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 on 30 November 2023, eight years after Shreya Singhal struck it down, and sections 72 and 72A were decriminalised the same day. The Cyber Appellate Tribunal was abolished by the Finance Act, 2017 on 26 May 2017 and appeals now lie to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal. And section 2(54) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was substituted on 1 September 2022 to enact Shilpa Mittal.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the 2024-25 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2024-25 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 7 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.
SECTION I
Form 84738, sat 30 May 2025
attempt any four of seven · 100 Marks
1)Critically examine the key provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.[25]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the word "critically" means the examiner wants the architecture and then a judgment on it. Take the Act in the order Parliament built it, because it was built in three layers, in 1967, in 2004 and in 2019, and each layer does something different. Then take the procedure, which is where the real criticism lies, and use the bail cases, because the fight over the Act in the last decade has been almost entirely a fight about bail.
Where the Act came from
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is a child of a constitutional amendment. The Committee on National Integration and Regionalisation set up by the National Integration Council recommended a power to impose reasonable restrictions on speech and association in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 added those words to Articles 19(2), 19(3) and 19(4), and the 1967 Act was passed to exercise that new power.
As enacted, the Act was modest. It dealt only with unlawful associations, and it created a small group of offences. It said nothing about terrorism, because terrorism was dealt with by separate temporary statutes: the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, which lapsed in 1995, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act was repealed by the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Ordinance promulgated on 21 September 2004, replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004. On the very same day, 21 September 2004, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004 inserted Chapters IV, V and VI into this Act. Nothing was abolished. The substance of the repealed statute was moved into a permanent Act, and the political cost of an emergency terrorism law was avoided by putting terrorism inside an ordinary one. That is the first and most important critical observation about the Act.
Layer one: unlawful associations
Section 2(1)(o) defines unlawful activity as any action taken by an individual or association which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about the cession or secession of a part of the territory of India, or which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, or which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India. The last limb reproduces the language of sedition and is the widest.
Section 3 empowers the Central Government to declare an association unlawful by notification stating the grounds. Section 4 requires the notification to be referred within thirty days to a Tribunal, and it does not take effect until the Tribunal confirms it. Section 5 constitutes the Tribunal, consisting of a person who is or has been a High Court Judge. Section 6 limits the declaration to five years unless cancelled earlier. Sections 7 and 8 allow prohibition of the use of funds and notification of places used by an unlawful association.
Section 10 punishes membership of an unlawful association, taking part in its meetings, contributing to it or receiving from it, with imprisonment up to two years and fine. Section 13 punishes taking part in, committing, advocating, abetting, advising or inciting an unlawful activity, with imprisonment up to seven years and fine. Section 14 makes every offence under the Act cognizable.
Layer two: terrorism, added in 2004
Section 15 defines a terrorist act as any act done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India, or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, by explosives, firearms, lethal weapons, poisonous or noxious gases or other hazardous substances, causing or likely to cause death, injury, loss or damage to property, or disruption of essential supplies or services. The words "economic security" and the limb on high quality counterfeit currency were added in 2013.
Section 16 punishes a terrorist act with death or imprisonment for life where it has resulted in death, and otherwise with not less than five years and up to imprisonment for life. Section 17 punishes raising funds, in India or abroad, from a legitimate or an illegitimate source, whether or not the funds were actually used. Section 18 punishes conspiracy, attempt, advocacy, abetment, advice, incitement or facilitation; section 18A organising a terrorist camp; section 18B recruiting. Section 20 punishes membership of a terrorist gang or organisation involved in a terrorist act with imprisonment up to life, and section 21 holding proceeds of terrorism.
Chapter V, sections 24 to 34, provides for forfeiture. Section 24A allows the Designated Authority to order forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism whether or not any person is prosecuted, section 25 gives the investigating officer power to seize with the prior approval of the Director General of Police, and section 33 allows forfeiture of the property of a person convicted.
Layer three: designation of individuals, added in 2019
Chapter VI as originally inserted allowed the Central Government to add an organisation to a Schedule as a terrorist organisation. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 substituted the chapter heading with "Terrorist Organisations and Individuals" with effect from 14 August 2019 and amended section 35 so that the Central Government may add the name of an individual to the Fourth Schedule, on a belief that the individual is involved in terrorism.
The only remedy is section 36, an application to the Central Government for denotification, and section 37, a Review Committee headed by a person who is or has been a High Court Judge. There is no prior hearing, no charge, no trial and no time limit. The 2019 amendment also allowed an officer of the National Investigation Agency of the rank of Inspector to investigate offences under Chapters IV and VI, which section 43 previously reserved to a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The procedure, which is where the Act bites
| Question | Ordinary law | UAPA |
|---|---|---|
| Custody pending investigation | 90 or 60 days under section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Section 43D(2): extendable to 180 days on a report of the Public Prosecutor |
| Bail | Ordinary discretion | Section 43D(5): no bail if the court, on the case diary or the police report, is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true |
| Anticipatory bail | Available | Section 43D(4): section 438 of the Code does not apply |
| Presumption | Prosecution proves everything | Section 43E: presumption of an offence under section 15 where arms or fingerprints are recovered |
| Question | Ordinary law | UAPA |
|---|---|---|
| Sanction | Ordinarily none | Section 45: previous sanction, and under section 45(2) only after an independent review of the evidence by an appointed authority |
| Rank of investigator | Officer in charge of a police station | Section 43: Deputy Superintendent or above, or an NIA Inspector after 2019 |
Section 46 makes evidence collected through interception under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or the Information Technology Act, 2000 admissible notwithstanding the Evidence Act.
How the courts have read it
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, decided on 2 April 2019, is the case that made section 43D(5) formidable. The respondent, a Srinagar businessman, was accused of routing funds from across the border to separatist leaders. The Delhi High Court granted bail after weighing the material and finding much of it inadmissible or unreliable. The Supreme Court set that aside. It held that at the bail stage the court must take the material in the charge sheet as it is, on its face value, and must not undertake a detailed analysis of admissibility or a weighing of probative value; the exercise is limited to seeing whether, on the totality of the material, the accusation is prima facie true. In practice that reduced the bail hearing to a reading of the prosecution's own document.
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, is the counterweight and is the case a student must be able to state. The respondent was accused of facilitating an attack in which a college professor's hand was severed, and had spent more than five years in custody with the trial nowhere near conclusion. The Kerala High Court granted bail; the National Investigation Agency appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that section 43D(5) does not per se oust the power of a constitutional court to grant bail where there has been a violation of Part III of the Constitution, and that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 prevails over the statutory embargo. In 2024 the Court added that Watali is confined to its facts and cannot be invoked to keep an undertrial in custody indefinitely.
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, decided on 24 March 2023, reported at 2023 (4) SCALE 739, went the other way and is the most significant recent development. In 2011 a division bench in Arup Bhuyan, following State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784, and Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380, had read down section 10(a)(i) of this Act and section 3(5) of the repealed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that mere membership of a banned organisation is not an offence and that only active membership involving incitement to violence is punishable, relying on United States First Amendment authority.
On a reference, a three judge Bench overruled all three decisions. It held that the earlier Bench should not have read down a statutory provision when the Union of India was not even a party and had not been heard, that reliance on American constitutional doctrine was misplaced because Article 19(4) permits restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India in terms the First Amendment has no counterpart for, and that mere membership of an association declared unlawful is an offence on the plain words of section 10.
The criticism
The first and most serious criticism is that the Act punishes on suspicion for years without a trial. Section 43D(2) permits 180 days of custody before a charge sheet, section 43D(5) as read in Watali makes bail almost unobtainable at the outset, and the trials are long. Najeeb supplies a remedy but a constitutional one: the accused must reach a High Court or the Supreme Court and demonstrate that delay has already violated Article 21. That is a remedy for the well represented.
The second criticism is definitional. Unlawful activity in section 2(1)(o) includes causing or intending to cause disaffection against India, a phrase taken from the sedition provision and never given the Kedar Nath Singh incitement limit in this statute. Section 15 covers acts "likely to threaten" the economic security of India. Neither phrase has an outer edge that a citizen can locate in advance.
The third criticism is that the 2019 amendment designates individuals as terrorists without process. An organisation at least gets the section 4 Tribunal before a declaration takes effect; an individual gets nothing until after designation, and then only an application to the very Government that designated him.
The fourth is empirical and the one an examiner rewards. The Act's conviction rate is very low relative to the number of arrests, which means the punishment in most cases is the process itself. Arup Bhuyan has now removed the active membership requirement that had, since 2011, offered some protection to a person whose only proved connection was a membership card.
The case for the Act must also be stated fairly. It is the only permanent central law addressing terrorism; the alternative has historically been an emergency statute with worse safeguards and a sunset clause that was allowed to expire and then be revived. Section 4 places a judicial Tribunal between the Government and a ban, section 45(2) requires an independent review of the evidence before sanction, and section 37 provides a review committee headed by a judge. Those are more safeguards than the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act carried.
Conclusion. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 began as a narrow law about associations and became, by the additions of 2004 and 2019, India's permanent anti terrorism statute. Its substantive provisions in sections 15 to 21 are conventional; what distinguishes it is Chapter VII, where 180 day custody, an inverted bail test, presumptions and a sanction requirement combine to make the pre-trial stage the whole of the punishment for most accused.
The Supreme Court has held the two ends of that debate at once: Watali makes the statutory bail test almost unanswerable on the material, Najeeb holds that Article 21 overrides it once delay becomes unconscionable, and Arup Bhuyan in 2023 restored liability for bare membership. A critical examination must conclude that the Act's defect is not its definition of terrorism but its allocation of time, and that the remedy the Court has supplied is constitutional rather than statutory, which is another way of saying that Parliament has not supplied one.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the LL.M. Criminal Law and Criminal Administration Semester 1 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.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.