NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI

B.A.LL.B.(HONS.), III-YEAR, V-SEMESTER (Batch of 2020)

End Semester Examinations, December-2022

Paper 5.1: Jurisprudence-I

Time: 3:00 Hours Total Marks: 50

Instructions:
1. Read the questions carefully and answer.
2. No clarification can be sought on the question paper.
3. The maximum limit for each answer is prescribed along with the weightage of marks. Anything
written beyond what is prescribed will neither be read nor evaluated

Read the following paragraphs carefully and answer questions 1 to 3:

―The law regulates relationships between people. It prescribes patterns of behaviour. It reflects the
values of society. The role of the court is to understand the purpose of law in society and to help the
law achieve its purpose. But the law of a society is a living organism. It is based on a given factual
and social reality that is constantly changing. Sometimes change in law precedes societal change and
is even intended to stimulate it. In most cases, however, a change in law is the result of a change in
social reality. Indeed, when social reality changes, the law must change too. Just as change in social
reality is the law of life, responsiveness to change in social reality is the life of the law. It can be said
that the history of law is the history of adapting the law to society‘s changing needs.‖ Badhshah v.
Urmila Badshah Godse

―The predominant understanding of the concept of a ―family‖ both in the law and in society is that it
consists of a single, unchanging unit with a mother and a father (who remain constant over time) and
their children. This assumption ignores both, the many circumstances which may lead to a change in
one‘s familial structure, and the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation to begin
with. Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer
relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the
death of a spouse, separation or divorce. Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally
occupy the roles of the ―mother‖ and the ―father‖) of children may change with remarriage, adoption
or fostering. These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as
their traditional counterparts. Such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not
only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislations. The
black letter of the law must not be relied upon to disadvantage families which are different from the
traditional ones.‖ Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal

Q1. Compare the approaches (note the commonalities and distinctions) reflected in the observations of the
Supreme Court in the paragraphs. Noting the distinctions how would you classify the two approaches
towards law manifested in the paragraphs. (8 Marks, two sides of the answer sheet)

Q2. Offer theoretical arguments against the approach adopted in Badhshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse
(6 Marks, two sides of the answer sheet)

Q3. Build upon the approach adopted by the court in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal
(6 Marks, two sides of the answer sheet)

Read the following provision and answer question no. 4 and 5

Section 4 - Conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages.―Notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the solemnization of marriages, a
marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the marriage
the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:―
P.T.O.
 (a) neither party has a spouse living;
(b) neither party―
(i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(ii) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a
kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
(iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity 4* * *;]
(c ) the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years;
(d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship:

Provided that where a custom governing at least one of the parties permits of a marriage between
them, such marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of
prohibited relationship; and]

Q4. How would Dworkin interpret the words ―any two persons‖ in section 4?
(6 Marks, two sides of the answer sheet)

Q 5. From the standpoint of power and dominance critique Dworkin‘s interpretation

(6 Marks, two sides of the answer sheet)

Q6 From a theoretical standpoint explain the existence of the following provisions in the Constitution of
India. Based on the same reflect on the nature of law.

Article 300 A - Persons not to be deprived on property save by authority of law – No person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of law

Article 39 - Certain principles of Policy to be followed by the State –

**
(b) that the ownership and control of material resources of the community are so distributed as best
to subserve the common good.
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and
means of production to the common detriment
(8 Marks, two sides of the answer sheet)

Q7. Write short notes on the following: (5+5 =10 Marks, one side of the answer sheet each)

(1) Relationship between inner morality of law and substantive morality

(2) Historical approach to law
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI

B.A.LL.B.(HONS.), III-YEAR, V-SEMESTER (Batch of 2020)

End Semester Examinations, December-2022

Paper 5.2: Constitutional Law-I

Time: 3:00 Hours Total Marks: 50

Instructions:
1. Read the questions carefully and answer.
2. No clarification can be sought on the question paper.
3. All answers must be supported by relevant case laws and constitutional
principles/doctrines.
4. Bare Constitution would be supplied.
5. All questions carry equal marks.

1. A rule requiring prior governmental sanction for an inquiry into allegations of corruption was
brought. The objective was to shield them from harassing lawsuits. It was also written in the
object and purpose of the rule that it will allow them to exercise their discretionary powers
without fear. The constitutional validity of the above mentioned rule is challenged. Decide.

2. A constitutional amendment providing for reservations on economic criteria was brought and
two sub-clauses to that effect were introduced in Articles 15 and 16 of the constitution. It
provided for reservations under both sub-clauses for all sections of the society which have a
family income of less than 15 lakhs per annum. The validity of the constitutional amendment
has been challenged. Decide by tracing the trajectory of views of the Supreme Court on the
issue.

3. A person accused of an offence approaches the Supreme Court to get a gagging order passed
against press till the time the case hasn‘t been decided by the trial court. Advice on the
maintainability of such petition.

4. A municipal corporation comes up with a notification to evict all the pavement dwellers with
immediate effect. The petitioner challenged the notification because of absence of notice and
on the grounds of violation of right to livelihood. The municipal corporation denied presence
of any right of notice under the municipal law. Decide.

5. Write short notes on the following: (05 Marks each)

a) Essential Religious Practices Doctrine.

b) The judicial approach on enforceability of Directive Principles of State Policy.
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI
B.A.LL.B.(HONS.), III-YEAR, V-SEMESTER (Batch of 2020)
End Semester Examinations, December-2022
Paper 5.3: Administrative Law
Time: 3:00 Hours Total Marks: 50
Instructions:
1. Read the questions carefully and answer.
2. All questions are mandatory.
3. No clarification can be sought on the question paper.

Q.1: Mr A, the petitioner, was appointed as the Judicial Member of the MP Taxation Tribunal for the period of 4 years
with effect from 31st Jan 2018. The State Government vide notification dated 27.2.2018 issued an Ordinance No.
1/2018 repealed the Madhya Pradesh Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 and the ordinance became operative from the
date of notification. Disputes pending before the Tribunal on the date of commencement of the Ordinance stood
automatically transferred to the High Court for disposal. As a consequence of the Tribunal being abolished, the
continuance of the petitioner as a Judicial Member automatically ended.

Petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 18 Lac with interest @ 15% per annum by filing a writ petition before the
MP High Court on the ground that his appointment was to continue up to 31.1.2023. He further argued that since
there was a premature termination of the tenure appointment, a claim of compensation for the balance period from
the date of termination of the appointment till 31.1.2023 (which according to him was the last date of the
period of tenure appointment) was made.

Mr. ‗A‘ argued that there had been a violation of the appellant's legitimate expectation (LE) to continue till the end
of the tenure period, and by applying the principle of LE, the State Government was bound to pay compensation.
The State urged that it was a legislative decision in the public interest. Due to financial constraints, it became
virtually impossible to continue with these tribunals in the state; therefore, the state is not required to pay any such
compensation. Please answer the following questions:

(a) Is the doctrine of LE applicable in the given situation? (7 Marks)

(b) How the doctrine of LE is different from Promissory Estoppel? (3 Marks)

Q.2: The State Government enacted legislation titled Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of
Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2017, and subsequent Admissions Rules, 2018 as well as Private
Medical and Dental Post Graduate Courses Entrance Examination Rules, 2019 in the exercise of the power
conferred upon it vide Section 12 of the Act, 2017. The aforesaid Act and Rules primarily regulate the admission
of students in post-graduate courses in private professional educational institutions. The provisions are also made for
the fixation of fees. In addition, the said Act and Rules also contain provisions for the reservation of seats. Certain
discrepancies with regard to the provisions regulating admission through the central entrance, eligibility for
admission, and fixation of the fee were raised by the Petitioners challenging the vires of these provisions as the
Petitioners are unaided institutions, i.e. they are not receiving any Government aid and are self-financing institutions
running from their own funds.

On the other hand, the government claimed that malpractices are usually noticed in the CET conducted by such
private institutions themselves, supported by relevant material, and it would be in the larger interest and welfare of
the students‘ community to promote merit and excellence and curb malpractices to have centralised CET. The state
argued legitimate state aim with regard to regulating the admission and fixation of fees as huge capitation fees being
charged by these Private Institutions at their own whims and fancies thereby also compromising merit in the
admissions.

It was also argued that Section 9 of the Act catered the certain requisites before fixation of the fee i.e. (a) the
infrastructure and facilities available; (b) investment made, salaries paid to teachers and staff; (c) future plans for
expansion and/or betterment of institution subject to two restrictions, viz. non-profiteering and non-charging of
capitation fees. Answer the following:
(a). Explain the genesis and tests related to the Doctrine of Proportionality. (6 Marks)
(b). Apply the doctrine of Proportionality to the given factual matrix. (4 Marks)
-1-
Q.3: The following pertinent facts are linked to a public institution, funded, controlled, and managed by the Central
Government. Central Civil Services Rules have also been made applicable to the Institution. (Marks 12)

15 June 2021: Mr. Alex (Ax) posted Facebook Posts without any name of individuals and institutions focused only
on corruption in admission and appointment in public institutions.

19 June 20211: Ms. Aleena (Al), a teacher, filed a complaint based on the FB posts for sexual harassment and
stalking against Ax to Mr. John, Director (D) and Director General (DG) of ABCD c/o Ministry of Labour and
Employment.

19 June 2021: D, without issuing any show cause notice and ignoring relevant provisions, approved and forwarded
the complaint to DG.

20 Jun 2021- DG, ignoring facets of natural justice and provisions of relevant laws, approved the disciplinary
inquiry (violation of 3C of CCS Conduct Rules 1964 and other misconducts) and also ordered suspension against
Mr. Ax.

20 July 2022: D ordered a disciplinary inquiry and suspension of Ax. D also sought an explanation from Ax before
starting the inquiry.

29 July 2022: Ax questioned the malafide actions as contrary to the Administrative Law.

30 July 2022: D by ignoring the explanation submitted by Ax, appointed Inquiry Officer to inquire into the alleged
misconducts committed by Ax.

August 2022: Inquiry Officer (IO) rejecting all claims of Ax (Lack of Jurisdiction of IO- ICC having the
jurisdiction- Grievance Redressal Committee, etc) and IO preparing arguments on behalf of the institution. IO also
threatened Ax for initiating contempt of court proceedings for questioning jurisdiction and the actions of IO.

Sept 2022: Ax submitted an application for change of IO on the ground of a biased approach and not adhering to the
relevant laws. D rejected the application without seeking any response from IO and Ax. After that, Ax refused to
participate in the proceedings despite several reminders from IO.

28 Sept 2022- IO held that the complaint is not related to sexual harassment, but Ax defamed and stalked Al;
therefore, IO has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and grievances. The IO also decided that the charge
against Ax under Rule 3C was proved.

31st October 2022: D, without issuing any reasoned order based on IO‘s findings, also approved the Inquiry Report.
The D also ordered the dismissal of Ax from employment.

On 17 Nov 2022, an appeal filed against the order of D was also dismissed without assigning any reasons by DG.

Mr. Ax, aggrieved by all the actions, approached your bench (Judicial & Adm Members, Administrative Tribunal)
to redress his grievances. List-out nature of activities and mandated procedural requirements. Your team must also
decide on the claims and draft a speaking order for the decision.

Relevant Statutory Provisions:

Rule 3C CCS Conduct Rules 1964: Prohibition of sexual harassment of working women:
(1) No Government servant shall indulge in any act of sexual harassment of any woman at her workplace.
(2) Every Government servant in charge of a workplace shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment
of any woman at such workplace.

Explanation – For this rule, ―sexual harassment‖ includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour, whether
directly or otherwise, as – (a) physical contact and advances; (b) demand or request for sexual favours; (c) sexually
coloured remarks; (d) showing any pornography; or € any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct
of a sexual nature.

Rule 14 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965:

Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appointed
under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority
to inquire into the truth thereof.
-2-
 Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 3 C of the Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Committee established in each ministry or Department or Office for
inquiring into such complaints shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed.

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Section 2(n): (n) ―sexual harassment‖

includes any one or more of the following unwelcome acts or 6ehaviour (whether directly or by implication)
namely:— (i) physical contact and advances; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) making sexually
coloured remarks; or (iv) showing pornography; or (v) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct
of sexual nature;

Section 9. Complaint of sexual harassment.—

(1) Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace to the
Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a
period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three
months from the date of the last incident: Provided that we are such complaint cannot be made in writing,
the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the Chairperson or any Member of the
Local Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for making the
complaint in writing:

Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may, for the
reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months if it is satisfied that the
circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period.

(2) Where the aggrieved woman cannot make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or
death, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section.

ABCD Statute Act 2000: Section 17: Dispute Redressal Committee:-

(1) There shall be a Dispute Redressal Committee to redress the dispute that may arise between the
management and staff, management and students, teachers and students, and teachers and administration
and teachers & teachers.
(2) ………………………………
(3) Where the dispute relates to a complaint of sexual harassment, the Dispute Redressal Committee shall be
reconstituted by co-opting certain additional members consistent with the law.

Q.4: The PUCL, created by the PUCL Act 1991, is a public-funded institution constituted by Central Government in
Delhi. The CMD is the apex authority of the PUCL. The PUCL has also established two branches A and B in XYZ
State. The branches are subject to administrative control including transfer, appointment, and extension of tenure by
the head office. Mr Karn (K) heads A branch, and branch B is administered by acting chairperson Mr. Ramana ®.
On 29 Oct 2019- Mr. Ashok Singh (AS) was appointed as Acting Chairman cum M.D of PUCL.

Dec 2020- B invited applications for the post of chairperson of the Branch. The public notification had specified the
essential qualification-MBA with seven years of experience in the field after the degree. Whereas the parental
statute has prescribed MBA with ten years‘ experience, the acting CMD-AS, to accommodate talented candidates
from foreign reputed institutions, after exercising discretionary powers in the removal of difficulties provision of the
enabling law and also PUCL Rules, reduced the qualification to MBA with seven years‘ experience.

Jan 2021: Mr. Short (S), employed at A branch, who got his MBA degree from an International Institute of repute
(World Ranking at 7th) in 2017, applied for the post.

Feb 2021: K, on influence from AS, strongly recommended the name of S to the Selection Committee for the said
appointment.

March 2021: The Selection Committee of B, recommended the name of S for the appointment. Thereafter the said
appointment was also sanctioned by CMD-AS. The Government also notified the appointment in the Official
Gazette.

May-June 2021: Mr. K, who completed the superannuation age of 65 years, got an extension of tenure for 10
Months, beyond the period of superannuation-65 years, approved by the acting CMD. Mr. S joined the post of
chairman at B.
-3-
 August 2021: Mr. Corruption ©, employed at A, who was not selected for the post of Chairman at B, publicly
criticized such an extension of tenure to K and appointment of S.

Sept 2022: Due to the Covid-19 pandemic C could not approach the desired authority to question such actions. But
C wants to challenge all administrative actions now.

You are a legal practitioner and also a part of a reputed international institution involved in combating corruption.
Draft a show cause notice to be issued to the wrongdoer(s) for seeking an explanation. You are also required to
prepare your arguments to examine the application and non-application of facets of administrative law. Support your
views with relevant judgments and statutory provisions (10 Marks)

Q.5: The following pertinent facts are linked to a public institution (A2Z), funded, controlled, and managed by the State
Government.

A2Z Act 2000: Section 17:

The Chief Admin Officer (CAO), who shall be an academic person in law not below the rank of a teacher, shall be
appointed by the CEO on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted by the Executive Council and
headed by the Dy CEO on such terms and conditions of service as the selection committee may specify subject to
the provisions of the Regulations.

The term of appointment of the CAO shall be for a period of five years or till he attains the age of sixty –five years,
whichever is earlier, and they shall be eligible for re-appointment by the Dy CEO with the approval of the CEO.

Section 29:
Executive Council of A2Z (Chairperson-Dy CEO) has the power to frame any regulations for the promotion of
quality governance and removal of difficulties in the operations of the institution

A2Z Regulations 2002:

(Regulations approved by Executive Council headed by Dy CEO-dated 22 Oct 2002):

Regulations 27:
If the office of the CAO is vacant or when the CAO is unable to perform his duties due to ill health or any other
cause, the Dy CEO shall have the authority to assign the responsibilities of the CAO to a teacher/ officer of the
University until the new CAO assumes his office or until the existing CAO attends to the duties of his office, as the
case may be.

On 17 Jan 2017, Mr. Smart (S), a teacher of history, aged 60 years, While exercising the powers under Regulation
27- without any approval from anyone, Mr. Smart (S) was appointed as the CAO till further order (without any
specific duration), by Dy CEO.

On 18 June 2022, New Dy CEO took over the administrative responsibility of the Institution.

On 30 June 2022. S published some posts (corruption in public governance in general) in a personal capacity on
social media.

29 Nov 2022- Dy CEO removed S from the post by dispensing the requirements of the principles of natural justice.

30 Nov 2022- S refused to vacate the office on the ground that Dy CEO has no power to remove him from office as
he was legally appointed/deputed for the lifetime. Further, he also questioned the violation of due process.

Answer the following questions based on the facts mentioned above. Support your arguments with relevant
judgments and provisions. (8 Marks)

1. Determine the legal status of all administrative actions involved therein

2. What is the scope of judicial review of administrative actions?
3. Which is the appropriate forum to take cognisance of the disputes?
4. Decide the disputes by issuing a speaking order.

-4-
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI

B.A.LL.B.(HONS.), III-YEAR, V-SEMESTER (Batch of 2020)

End Semester Examinations, December-2022

Paper 5.4: CPC and Law of Limitations

Time: 3:00 Hours Total Marks: 50

Instructions:
1. Read the questions carefully and answer.
2. No clarification can be sought on the question paper.

1. Write short notes on: (3X 4 = 12Marks)

a. Application of res judicata in case of interlocutory orders and consent decrees.

b. Abatement of civil suit and right to sue
c. Court‘s power to grant anti-suit injunction in case of non-exclusive jurisdiction clause.

2. PQ Pvt. Ltd. was allotted a contract for manufacture and sale of goods for the year 2015 and subsequently for
2016-2017 by the Government of Delhi which also charged 9.5% over the auction money as cess. Writ
petitions challenging the govt.‘s right to charge 9.5% cess were filed in the Delhi High Court. The govt.
announced that it would continue to charge it and the issue of rolling it back was under consideration of the
govt. whose decision would be binding on the contractors. Hence, PQ Pvt. Ltd. paid the contract money as
well as the cess. In the year 2016, the Delhi High Court declared the 9.5% cess illegal and the decision was
reported in August AIR 2017. Again in 2018, in another writ petition the Delhi High Court declared the cess
illegal. This was reported in AIR in January 2019. Thereafter, PQ Pvt. Ltd. gave a two month to the govt.
and filed a suit in November 2022 for refund of extra money paid to the govt. The govt. resisted the suit on
the ground of limitation as the govt. has decided internally that it will roll back the cess and issued a
notification in the official gazette to that effect in August 2017. Where as PQ Pvt. Ltd. is alleging that period
will not run from the dates of payment as payments were made under a mistake of law so the period till
January 2019 should be excluded as it only after the cess was declared illegal, the mistake was discovered.
The govt. is alleging firstly, that mistake of law is no defence and secondly, the time should be calculated
from the year 2017 when the Delhi High Court first declared it illegal or November 2019. (Period of
Limitation – 3 Years)

Decide upon the contentions of the parties with the help of relevant law and cases. (10 Marks)

3. K and L entered into an agreement to sell rice. For the business, L took certain loans from K against
promissory notes. After sometime, K alleged breach of contract by L and claimed compensation for the
same. K filed a summary suit against L. L is alleging that K cannot file a summary suit as the promissory
notes are only collateral security and the amount is unliquidated. The court rejected the contention of L and
continued the suit. Furthermore, the court was of the view that the defence raised by L is illusory and
practically moonshine but granted him the leave to defend as L was willing to submit the amount claimed in
the court as security money. Both K and L filed revision petition in the High Court. L is contending that the
trial court committed an error in deciding that the suit is a summary suit. K is contending that the trial court
has committed an error in granting leave to defend to L.

Decide, with the help of relevant law and cases, about the maintainability of both revision petitions and
irrespective of your opinion on maintainability of revision petition, decide upon both the revision petitions.
(12 Marks)

P.T.O.
4. In 2015, RSV Co. hired PKL Pvt. Ltd. to undertake renovation of their office buildings. In July 2016, the
work was completed and payment became due and so PKL sent a bill to RSV demanding payment for the
work done. After many rounds of discussions, in July 2018, RSV replied, ―I think the bill is incorrect, there
are many errors in it. We will examine the work done, and then see what, if anything is due.‖ In July 2021,
on the last day of limitation, the Q who was the authorised signatory of PKL handed over the plaint to the
District Judge at his residence around 7 pm. Q told the Judge that he could not reach the Registry during the
working hours owing to fact that he met with a minor accident and had to go to hospital for first-aid. The
judge accepted the plaint. After the hearing on admission of the plaint, the court admitted the plaint and sent
summons to RSV Co. H, who was the authorized signatory of RSV Co. appeared on the date mentioned in
the summons and requested the court to grant him some more time to file the written statement and the court
granted him time and fixed the hearing for another day. On the adjourned date, H did not put in appearance.
The court adjourned the hearing for another date. On the next date also, H did not put in appearance and the
court started to proceed ex-parte. The suit proceedings continued and after PKL closed his evidence, H
appeared before the court and informed the court that he met with a fatal accident and he was hospitalized. H
requested the court to allow him to submit the written statement. PKL objected to it. The court allowed RSV
to file the written statement. In the written statement, RSV Co. raised some preliminary objections to the
maintainability of suit viz., suit was not filed properly as it was handed over to a judge, suit is barred by
limitation as it is filed in 2021 which is more than 3 years from July 2016 when the cause of action arose and
the suit is not properly valued. (Period of Limitation -3 years)

PKL objected to all these contentions of RSV but the court accepted the contentions of RSV and dismissed
the suit. Now PKL has filed an appeal against dismissal of suit on the following grounds:

a. The suit is not barred by limitation as a fresh period commenced from July 2018 when RSV sent reply
to the demand of payment from PKL. (6 Marks)
b. The court has committed an error in allowing R to file written statement when the court was
proceeding ex-parte. (4 Marks)
c. The suit was filed properly. (3 Marks)
d. It is the duty of the court to decide all issues and not to dismiss suit on preliminary objections.
(3 Marks)

Decide upon all the contentions between the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and cases.
(16 Marks)
 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI
B.A.LL.B.(HONS.), III-YEAR, V-SEMESTER (Batch of 2020)
End Semester Examinations, December-2022
Paper 5.5: Law of Evidence

Time: 3:00 Hours Total Marks: 50

Instructions:
1. Read the questions carefully and answer.
2. No clarification can be sought on the question paper.
3. The criminal major acts, case list, full text of cases, class notes (handwritten or typed) are
permitted. Text books, guides, or other academic material are not permitted.

1. AX and VW are siblings (aged 30 and 25 respectively) and live with their parents in Kotturpuram.
Their extended family comprising their two aunts, two uncles and four cousins also live within a 5
kms radius of Kotturpuram. GH is among the four cousins and she is a police officer who works as
the SHO of Kotturpuram Police Station. This extended family meets very regularly on different
occasions and they enjoy each other‘s company and support. They are all part of an active Whatsapp
group called ‗Kottur-Gang‘ where all kinds of material is shared. Unfortunately, on 5th May 2022 the
parents of AX and VW met with a road accident and were declared dead on arrival at the Zeus
Specialty Hospital, Kotturpuram. In the aftermath of their death, significant disagreements arise
between AX and VW concerning the division of property and money belonging to their parents.
Despite repeated attempts by the extended family to resolve the tensions, the disagreements got more
intense. At 3.12AM on 30th June 2022, AX sent a message on the whatsapp group ‗Kottur-Gang‘
saying that there was a heated argument with VW and that AX pushed VW down the stairs in an
aggressive manner. There were a series of hysterical text and voice messages saying that VW was
bleeding profusely and had stopped breathing. All 25 messages sent between 3.12AM and 3.20AM
were deleted (by AX) from the group by 3.25AM. GH, who was on night duty, was the only one in
the group who saw these messages before they were deleted. She rushed to AX‘s house. There GH
found VW dead. AX was charged with murder under s.302 IPC and is being tried for that offence. As
part of the trial, the prosecution is seeking to prove his confession on the Whatsapp group by
producing GH as a witness. AX‘s counsel has raised the argument that this ‗confession‘ cannot be
proved in court in this manner under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Provide arguments for the
prosecution, AX and also decide the issue of whether this confession can be proved in the manner
being sought by the prosecution. (10 Marks)

2. A, a wealthy businessman, had two children: X and Y. X, the daughter, was the elder of the two – she
had been abandoned by her husband shortly after their marriage, and was the sole caregiver to a
young child, P. X was also suffering from cancer. As such, A cared for her very deeply and was
invested in securing her future by all means. Y, on the other hand, projected himself to his father –
and to the world – as a successful and self-made entrepreneur in his own right; A therefore believed
that Y would not need to be provided for by him (i.e., by A) anymore. However, unknown to A, Y
was deep in debt, having lost all his money in crypto speculation.

On 01.09.2022, A made an unregistered Will which was attested by two witnesses (J and K – both
colleagues of his son Y), leaving all his assets whatsoever to P, with X to act as her guardian till P
attained majority (in the event that A were to pass away during P‘s minority). Y was named as the
executor of this Will. A thereafter entrusted the original document in a sealed cover to Y on
02.09.2022, with strict instructions to open it only after he (i.e., A) had passed away, and further, to
do so only in the presence of X.

On 03.09.2022, J told Y that he (i.e., J) had been called by A to his residence to witness A‘s execution
of a Will. Y immediately realised that the sealed cover given to him the previous day must contain
this document. On 10.09.2022, Y gave the sealed cover to an attorney Q, and asked him to open it and
to give Y his professional legal opinion as to the effect of the disposition made by A. Y wanted to
know whether the Will would prejudice his claims as an heir to his father A‘s business empire in any
way. Q opened the sealed cover and read the Will: he explained its contents to Y, and returned both
the document and the opened cover to Y (without retaining any copies).
-1-
Miffed at being totally excluded from A‘s estate under the Will, Y wrote a letter to his father on
14.09.2022, stating: ―You have caused me deep hurt and distress by cutting me off without so much as
a discussion with me. I am not your son anymore. I owe you nothing! I will certainly not act as
executor to an unfair Will.‖.

A, on reading the letter, was heart-broken and took ill; on 13.10.2022, he passed away.

When clearing A‘s papers after his death, P – who was aged 16 – came across the letter. She shared it
with her mother X. X consulted a lawyer L, who took the view that the letter was strongly suggestive
of the fact that Y had accessed and read A‘s last Will, and also, that Y had been excluded in that Will
as a legatee. Legal notices asking Y to share a copy of the Will or to disclose its whereabouts went
unanswered; X therefore filed a civil suit against Y, seeking a decree of mandatory injunction for
production of the last Will of A.

In his Written Statement, Y denied all knowledge of any Will made by A, though he admitted having
written the letter dated 14.09.2022. He pleaded that he had written the letter to his father on learning
of A‘s intention to make a Will, allegedly from Q. (Q had previously also given legal advice in a few
matters to A, during A‘s lifetime; he was quite a popular lawyer). However, Y further pleaded in his
Written Statement that no such Will was finally ever made by A, and that A had died intestate. When
L thereafter wrote to Q to enquire whether he (i.e., Q) had ever discussed any Will of A with Y, Q
wrote back: ―My dear L, You know jolly well that my discussions with Y are the subject of attorney-
client privilege; I’m afraid I cannot say more.‖ (Q had no idea that X and Y were locked in litigation,
and that the existence of the Will was itself in issue therein.)

Just prior to leading evidence in the suit, it was noted by L that he had only annexed a photocopy of
the letter dated 14.09.2022 to X‘s plaint, which was prepared at his office using his brand new Canon
copier: though he searched everywhere in his office, he could not find the original (which had been
entrusted to them by X when she first consulted him).

In the above facts, answer the following questions:

1. On whom does the burden of proof in this suit lie, and why?
2. When preparing to lead evidence in the suit, what specific facts would such party have to think
of proving, in order to succeed in the suit? To what standard of proof should such facts be
proved? Where, in the law, does one derive such a standard from?
3. Is the copy of the letter dated 14.09.2022 as annexed to the plaint admissible in evidence?
Why/why not?
4. Would it be necessary for P, who is still a minor, to enter the witness stand to prove any facts in
this case? Would she be a competent witness?
5. Is Q a competent witness in this suit? Would X be entitled to summon him to depose before the
Court? If yes, what can Q depose to? Please refer to Section 477, IPC in answering this part.
(3*5 = 15 Marks)

4. ―The phrase ‘whether it amounts to a confession or not’ in s.27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 relates to ‗information‘ and not to ‗so much of such information‘‖ – Vepa P. Sarathi.

Write an essay on the importance/ implications of this sentence while exploring the relationship
between ss. 25-27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 along with ss.161-162 of the CrPC. Please use
relevant case law to elucidate the points in your essay. (10 Marks)

5. X is accused of murdering Y after a tussle broke out between them due to a gang rivalry. The
Police arrived on the scene immediately and discovered Y‘s body, but X had run away from
the scene. The post-mortem examination on Y‘s body was done immediately at the Civil
Hospital by A, who is a dermatologist by specialisation and was the doctor on duty that day.
In the post-mortem report, the cause of death was found to be blunt-force trauma but in the
section of external injuries, A noted that there were bite marks found on Y‘s body and they
were photographed.

-2-
 One week later, the Police managed to arrest X and produced him for medical examination before A,
who was once again on duty at the Civil Hospital. During the examination, A observed there were bite
marks on X‘s body as well. On the request of the IO, A created dental moulds of X and Y and
compared them with the bite marks found on X and Y‘s bodies respectively. In this bite mark
examination report, A concluded that the bite marks on X‘s body were those of Y and vice-versa.

The prosecution wishes to exhibit A‘s post-mortem report and bite-mark examination report as
evidence before the Trial Court to tie X to the offence. They also argue that A is exempted from
testifying in person, and the report by itself is sufficient, in light of Section 293, CrPC. Provide
arguments on behalf of the defence:

i) challenging the reliability of the two reports by A (8 Marks)

ii) challenging the non-examination of A (2 Marks)
(10 Marks)

5. TX and PL are married to each other and live in the same house. WD, their domestic help, is the last
one to leave their house every night after TX and PL have retired to their bedroom for the night. On
the night of 5th January 2022, WD by mistake latches the bedroom door from outside before leaving
the house for the night at 10.30PM. TX and PL realise that the bedroom door is latched from outside
around 11.45PM and immediately call WD. In that conversation, TX and PL tell WD not to bother
coming back that late in the night to open the bedroom door and that WD can come first thing in the
morning as usual. On the morning of 6th January 2022, on opening the door, WD finds TX dead in a
pool of blood with injuries to the head and neck. PL had no visible injuries but did not seem to be
aware of the surroundings when the door was opened. PL is being tried for murder and during the trial
there is repeated and consistent testimony from different witnesses that TX and PL were going
through intense domestic disagreements for the last two years. All the above facts are not disputed.
The prosecution then cites s.106 Evidence Act, 1872 while highlighting Illustration (a) to s.106 and
argue that in light of the above facts the burden is on PL to establish that PL is not guilty. Draft
arguments in favour of PL challenging this argument from the prosecution. (5 Marks)

-3-