UPHESC Assistant Professor Law 2025 PYQs

Concept: Lon L. Fuller (The Morality of Law, 1964) distinguished the ‘morality of duty’ from the ‘morality of aspiration’ and the inner/external morality of law.

1. He linked the morality of law to the morality of aspiration (eight desiderata of legality).
2. Hart – Concept of Law (primary and secondary rules); Devlin – enforcement of morals (Hart–Devlin debate); Denning – a judge, not this theory.

Short trick: Fuller = Duty vs Aspiration; 8 ways to fail to make law.

Concept: Theories of corporate personality: Fiction (Savigny, Salmond), Concession, Bracket/Symbolist (Ihering), Realist (Gierke, Maitland), Purpose (Brinz).

1. ‘Will theory’ is a theory of the nature of legal rights (Kant, Hegel, Savigny, Windscheid), contrasted with Ihering’s interest theory.
2. Hence it is not a corporate personality theory.

Short trick: Will vs Interest = theories of RIGHTS; Fiction/Bracket/Realist = CORPORATION.

Concept: Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925, Privy Council) is the leading case on common intention under Section 34 IPC (‘they also serve who only stand and wait’).

1. R v. Tolson (1889) – honest and reasonable belief (bigamy) negatives mens rea.
2. Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) – presumption of mens rea in statutory offences.
3. R v. Prince (1875) – strict liability; mistake as to age no defence.

Short trick: Barendra = Sec. 34 (Shankaritola post-office murder).

Concept: Section 52 IPC: nothing is said to be done in ‘good faith’ which is done without due care and attention.

1. Sec. 51 – ‘oath’; Sec. 53 – punishments; Sec. 54 – commutation of death sentence.
2. BNS, 2023 equivalent: Section 2(11).

Short trick: 52 = Good faith = due care and attention.

Concept: Extortion becomes robbery when the offender, being in the victim’s presence, puts him in fear of instant death/hurt/restraint and thereby induces delivery then and there (Sec. 390 IPC).

1. This is Illustration (c) to Sec. 390 – A has committed robbery.
2. Dacoity needs five or more persons (Sec. 391).
3. Mere extortion/intimidation lacks the ‘instant fear in presence’ element.

Short trick: Presence + instant fear + on-the-spot delivery = Robbery.

Concept: Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983): mandatory death sentence for murder by a life-convict (Sec. 303) violates Arts. 14 and 21 and was struck down.

1. Bachan Singh (1980) – upheld death penalty, ‘rarest of rare’ test.
2. Machhi Singh (1983) – laid down categories of rarest of rare.
3. Santa Singh (1976) – hearing on sentence under Sec. 235(2) CrPC is mandatory.

Short trick: Mithu = Mandatory death gone.

Concept: Chapter XI (Sections 65–78) of the IT Act, 2000 is titled ‘Offences’ – e.g. Sec. 65 tampering with source code, 66 computer-related offences, 67 obscene material.

1. Chapter IX – penalties and compensation (Sec. 43 etc.).
2. Chapter VII – electronic signature certificates; Chapter XIII – miscellaneous.

Short trick: XI = offences (65–78).

Concept: A crime passes through four stages: intention → preparation → attempt → accomplishment.

1. Intention alone is not punishable; preparation generally not punishable except e.g. waging war (Sec. 122), dacoity (Sec. 399).
2. Attempt is punishable (Sec. 511 and specific sections).

Short trick: I-P-A-C: ‘I Plan, Attempt, Complete’.

Concept: Section 376B IPC: sexual intercourse by husband with his wife during separation (under decree or otherwise) without her consent – imprisonment 2 to 7 years and fine.

1. 376A – causing death or persistent vegetative state; 376C – intercourse by a person in authority.
2. BNS, 2023 equivalent: Section 67.

Short trick: 376-B = ‘Bichhde’ (separated) wife.

Concept: Declaratory (evidentiary) theory – statehood exists independently, recognition only declares it: supported by Hall, Wagner, Fisher, Brierly, Erich (and the Montevideo Convention).

1. Constitutive theory – Hegel, Anzilotti, Oppenheim, Holland.
2. Austin is not among the exponents of the declaratory theory (he denied international law the character of true law).

Short trick: Declaratory = H-F-B (Hall, Fisher, Brierly); Constitutive = H-A-O (Hegel, Anzilotti, Oppenheim).

Concept: Hugo Grotius, author of De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625), is called the father of the law of nations (international law).

1. Gentilis, Ayala and Brunus were earlier writers – ‘forerunners’ of Grotius.
2. Grotius also wrote Mare Liberum (freedom of the seas).

Short trick: Grotius 1625 – War & Peace.

Concept: Article 59 of the ICJ Statute: the decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.

1. There is no rule of binding precedent in the ICJ.
2. Under Art. 38(1)(d) judicial decisions are only a subsidiary means for determining rules of law.

Short trick: 59 = no stare decisis – binds parties only.

Concept: In Luther v. Sagor (1921) the English Court of Appeal gave retroactive effect to the British recognition of the Soviet Government, validating its earlier (1919) confiscation of timber.

1. Tinoco Arbitration (1923) – non-recognition does not by itself prove absence of a government.
2. Paquete Habana (1900) – customary international law is part of the law of the land (US).
3. Haile Selassie v. Cable & Wireless (1939) – de jure/de facto recognition and title to property.

Short trick: Luther v. Sagor = Soviet timber, recognition dates back.

Concept: Article 1 of the UDHR (10 Dec 1948): “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…”.

1. Art. 2 – non-discrimination; Art. 3 – right to life, liberty and security; Art. 4 – prohibition of slavery.
2. UDHR has 30 Articles.

Short trick: Art. 1 = Born free & equal (first words of the UDHR).

Concept: Lord Coleridge C.J. gave this definition in R. v. Keyn (the Franconia case, 1876).

1. S. S. Lotus (1927, PCIJ) – jurisdiction on the high seas; positivist view of state consent.
2. West Rand Central Gold Mining v. The King (1905) – Lord Alverstone on international law in English courts.
3. Asylum case (1950) – Colombia v. Peru, regional custom.

Short trick: Coleridge → Keyn (Franconia).

Concept: Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute lists international conventions (treaties) and international custom first; they are the primary and most important sources.

1. General principles of law recognised by civilised nations come third.
2. Judicial decisions and teachings of publicists (juristic works) are only ‘subsidiary means’ (Art. 38(1)(d)).

Short trick: Treaty + Custom = primary; Courts + Jurists = subsidiary.

Concept: Proceedings in camera and bar on printing/publishing them is Section 22 HMA; Section 23 deals with decree in proceedings (court’s duty to be satisfied, reconciliation).

1. Sec. 5 – conditions; Sec. 8 – registration; Sec. 18 – punishment for contravention of conditions in Sec. 5 – all correct.
2. Sec. 22 was inserted by the 1976 amendment.

Short trick: 22 = in camera; 23 = decree.

Concept: The proviso to Section 24 HMA (application for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding to be disposed of, as far as possible, within 60 days of service of notice) was inserted by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 49 of 2001).

1. Act 68 of 1976 – Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (major divorce reforms).
2. Act 44 of 1964 – amended Sec. 13(1A).

Short trick: 2001 → 60 days for interim maintenance.

Concept: Shah Bano (1985) was decided by a 5-judge bench: CJ Y. V. Chandrachud, D. A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy, E. S. Venkataramiah and Ranganath Misra.

1. It held that a divorced Muslim wife unable to maintain herself can claim maintenance under Sec. 125 CrPC.
2. Justice Dipak Misra joined the Supreme Court only in 2011.

Short trick: Shah Bano bench = Chandrachud-led ‘5’; Dipak Misra was decades later.

Concept: Section 17 HMA: a bigamous Hindu marriage is void and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 IPC apply.

1. Sec. 494 – marrying again during lifetime of spouse; Sec. 495 – same offence with concealment of former marriage.
2. Sec. 493 – cohabitation by deceit; 496 – fraudulent ceremony; 497 – adultery (struck down in Joseph Shine, 2018).

Short trick: 17 → 494 + 495 (BNS: 82).