UPHESC Assistant Professor Law 2025 PYQs

Concept: A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): the line between quasi-judicial and administrative functions is thin; rules of natural justice apply to administrative proceedings too.

1. Facts: Naqishbund, a candidate, sat on the selection board for the Indian Forest Service – bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
2. Post-decisional hearing (D) is associated with Maneka Gandhi (1978) / Swadeshi Cotton Mills (1981).
3. Judicial review as basic structure (B) – Minerva Mills / L. Chandra Kumar.

Short trick: Kraipak = Natural justice enters the administrative field.

Concept: The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 received Presidential assent on 1 January 2014 and came into force on 16 January 2014.

1. Passed by Rajya Sabha 17 Dec 2013 and Lok Sabha 18 Dec 2013.
2. Assent: 1 Jan 2014; commencement notified: 16 Jan 2014.
3. First Lokpal (Justice P. C. Ghose) appointed in March 2019.

Short trick: Passed Dec ’13 → Assent 1 Jan → Force 16 Jan 2014.

Concept: H. W. R. Wade defined administrative law as “the law relating to the control of governmental power”.

1. K. C. Davis: law concerning the powers and procedures of administrative agencies, including judicial review.
2. Ivor Jennings: law relating to the administration – organisation, powers and duties of administrative authorities.

Short trick: Wade = ‘control of governmental power’ (W for ‘Watchdog’).

Concept: Mandamus (‘we command’) directs a public authority/official to perform a public duty; it does not lie against a private person.

1. Habeas corpus lies against both State and private persons – A wrong.
2. Quo warranto questions a person’s title to a public office, not courts – B wrong.
3. Prohibition is issued to inferior courts/tribunals, never to private persons – D wrong.

Short trick: Mandamus = public duty; Prohibition/Certiorari = courts; Quo warranto = public office; Habeas corpus = anyone.

Concept: John Austin (Province of Jurisprudence Determined, 1832) is conventionally called the father of English jurisprudence (and of the analytical/imperative school).

1. He first separated law ‘as it is’ from law ‘as it ought to be’ and gave the command theory.
2. Bentham is called the father of legal positivism/utilitarian legal reform; Salmond is a later analytical jurist; Roscoe Pound – sociological jurisprudence (social engineering).

Short trick: Austin = Father of English (Analytical) Jurisprudence; Pound = Social engineering.

Concept: F. C. von Savigny (historical school) held that law grows like language – a slow, organic process out of the Volksgeist (spirit of the people).

1. “Law is found, not made” – it grows with the people and dies when the nation loses its individuality.
2. Kant – philosophical school; Holland – analytical (‘formal science of positive law’).

Short trick: Savigny: Law grows like language – organic, gradual, Volksgeist.

Concept: Law and the Modern Mind (1930) is by Jerome Frank, a leader of American legal realism (‘fact-sceptic’).

1. He called the belief in certainty of law a ‘basic legal myth’ (father-complex).
2. Holmes – The Common Law / ‘The Path of the Law’; Blackstone – Commentaries; Holland – Elements of Jurisprudence.

Short trick: Frank = Fact-sceptic, ‘Modern Mind’.

Concept: C. K. Allen: jurisprudence is “the scientific synthesis of the essential principles of law”.

1. Keeton: study and systematic arrangement of the general principles of law.
2. Gray: the science of law – statement and systematic arrangement of the rules followed by courts.
3. Salmond: science of the first principles of civil law.

Short trick: Allen = ‘synthesis’ (A–S).

Concept: T. E. Holland defined ownership as “plenary control over an object”.

1. Salmond: ownership is the relation between a person and a right vested in him (ownership of rights).
2. Austin: right indefinite in point of user, unrestricted in disposition and unlimited in duration.
3. Renner – Marxist view of ownership as social function.

Short trick: Holland = Plenary control (H–P: ‘Holds Plenary’).

Concept: The term ‘sociology’ (science of society) was coined by Auguste Comte; Puchta was Savigny’s disciple in the historical school.

1. Ehrlich – ‘living law’ (law of society is ahead of legislation) – correct.
2. Duguit – ‘social solidarity’ – correct.
3. Savigny – law originates in the general consciousness (Volksgeist) of the people – correct.

Short trick: Comte = Sociology; Puchta = Savigny’s pupil (historical).

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).