JGU Id. No.

______________

O.P. Jindal Global University

Jindal Global Law School
End-term Examinations – Semester A

Course Name : Legal Methods

Course Code : L-CT-0001
Programme : B.A., LL.B. (Hons.), B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) & LL.B. 2015 – Year I
Session : 2015 – 2016
Time Allowed : 3 Hours
Maximum Marks : 50

This question paper has six (6) printed pages (including this page).

Instructions to students:
1. This question paper has two parts: PART A and PART B
2. Answer any three out of five questions in PART A.
3. Each question in PART A carries 10 marks.
4. Answer any four out of five questions in PART B.
5. Each question in PART B carries 5 marks.
6. DO NOT write your Name and Student Id. No. anywhere on the answer book except on the space
provided.
7. DO NOT write anything on the question paper except Student Id. No. on the space provided.
8. Start each question on a new page.
9. Students undertaking the examination are requested to adhere to the University norms related to
examinations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a Closed Book examination. Students are not allowed to bring any material in the Examination Hall.
Warning: Plagiarism in any form is prohibited. Anyone found using unfair means will be penalized
severely.

JGLS [Semester A, 2015 – 2016] Page 1

 PART A

Answer three out of five questions. (3 X 10 = 30 Marks)

Question 1. Farzistan is a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and a multi-religious country. Its population can be broadly
divided into four major ethnicities: 40% Manus, 35% Chelsies, 20% Arsalans and 5% Livrepoulis. Frazistan is
also a democratic country in which general elections are held every 5 years to elect the President. In the election
in 2005, Mr. Moody, a Livrepoulis, got elected as the president.

The national army of Farzistan has traditionally been dominated by the Manus community. After Mr. Moody’s
election, the army was enraged and refused to submit to the command of a Livrepoulis. In 2006, Mr. Wenger, the
then chief of army staff staged a coup d’état against Mr. Moody and established a military dictatorship. The
Livrepoulis protested by staging demonstrations and organized strikes in those areas where they had the number.

In retaliation to the strikes, the army imposed martial laws in the areas populated by the Livrepoulis. The laws
provided among other things:

i) The army reserves the power to enter and search any premise owned or possessed by a Livrepoulis without
warrant in suspicion of any activity directed against the government of Farzistan.
ii) The army shall have the power to arrest any Livrepoulis without warrant in suspicion of any activity directed
against the government of Farzistan.
iii) The army shall have the power to use force (which includes lathi charging, tear gas shelling and firing
bullets) on the Livrepoulis who refuse to submit to the order of any army official.

These martial laws were rampantly misused by the Manus army officials. According to UN reports as many as
100000 Livrepoulis were killed. Mr. Juggernaut, one such officer was especially notorious who authorized the
firing on at least 5000 Livrepoulis who were peacefully protesting in a public garden square. It was under his
command thousands were arrested, maimed and tortured in custody. The Human Rights crisis drew the attention
of the international community and a military intervention was made which led to the fall of the military
dictatorship. The national army of Frazistan was disbanded and the army officials were put to trial. During trial,
Mr. Juggernaut claimed that he was only following the laws of the land and as such, he did not do anything illegal.
The prosecution claimed that those martial laws were not laws at all and therefore should not have been followed.
Comment. (10 Marks)

Question 2. How does the legislative process function in the Indian legal system? What is subordinate / delegated
legislation? Explain the functioning and restrictions imposed on delegated legislative authorities with the help of
case law. (10 Marks)

JGLS [Semester A, 2015 – 2016] Page 2

Question 3. Read the cases and answer the questions based on them.

Rahul v. Virat, AIR 1978 SC 100

The plaintiff is an elderly man who lived in a small building in a high crime area. The building had poor lighting
on its front porch and a continuously unlocked outer door. As the plaintiff was about to enter the building one
night, the outer door was jerked open by an unknown youth who had been hiding inside. The youth struck and
robbed the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought suit against the landlord, but the District court judge granted the
defendant's motion for a directed verdict of no cause of action. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the
decision of the District court.

We reverse. We have from time to time held that persons are liable for negligently exposing others to foreseeable
criminal activities, and this is such a case. The inadequate lighting and locks were physical defects in a common
area of the building under the landlord's control; this would be a far different case if the building had not contained
such defects. The landlord's negligence in failing to repair them made it more likely than not that the plaintiff
would be victimized by a criminal attack.

Jitender v. Harvinder Kaul Building, AIR 1986 SC 1001

In 1980, a mental health clinic leased and began occupying an office on the fifth floor of the Harvinder Kaul
Building. About two years later, an out- patient at the center stabbed Jitender, a physician with an office in the
building, while both of them were riding in the building's elevator. Dr. Jitender brought suit against the owner of
the building. At trial, the director of theclinic testified that the stabbing was the first such incident in his ten years
of experience. There was also testimony that before the incident other tenants in the building had voiced concern
over use of the elevators and stairs by the clinic's patients. Dr. Jitender won a verdict for Rs. 11,15,000 in damages.
We affirm.

Majority opinion delivered by Maninder, J. and Sukwindher, J.

We stated in Rahul v. Virat that landlords are liable for damages caused when they negligently expose others to
foreseeable criminal attacks in common areas of buildings they lease. In both this case and Rahul v. Virat, the
attack occurred in an area of the building under the landlord's control and used by all tenants. Just as the landlord
in Rahul v. Virat knew or should have known about the absence of adequate lighting and locks in the apartment
building, the defendant here knew or should have known about the potentially dangerous condition in the
Harvinder Kaul Building. When the landlord is informed by his tenants that such a condition exists, he has a duty
to investigate and take any possible preventive measures.

Shishupal, J., dissenting. The court here imposes unwarranted and unreasonable burdens on landlords by vastly
extending their potential liability. In Harvinder Kaul, we expressly limited the landlord's liability to his failure to
detect and repair dangerous physical conditions in common areas of leased buildings. Unlike the front door in
Rahul v. Virat, this building had no physical defect that enabled the assault to occur. In Rahul v. Virat we also
limited liability of foreseeable criminal attacks, rather than those based merely on the subjective fears of some

JGLS [Semester A, 2015 – 2016] Page 3

tenants in the building. The majority opinion suggests a medieval fear of persons who receive mental health care
and will impede the state's goal of returning mental patients to the community. We also limited liability
foreseeable criminal attacks, rather than those based merely on the subjective fears of some tenants in the building.

a. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, what is the precedential value of the ruling in Rahul v. Virat and Jitender
v. Harvinder Kaul Building for deciding the questions of negligence of landlord? Explain the doctrine of
precedent.
b. Would it make a difference to the outcome of the case in Jitender v. Harvinder Kaul Building if the High
Court of Delhi was required to decide the case instead of the Supreme Court?
c. Assume that Rahul v. Virat was decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead of the Supreme Court.
Would it make a difference to the outcome of the case in Jitender v. Harvinder Kaul Building if the High
Court of Delhi was required to decide the case instead of the Supreme Court? (3.5 + 3.5 + 3 = 10 Marks)

Question 4. Study the Statute and the Text and answer the question based on them.

“The Arms Act, 1959

1. Short Title, extent and commencement

(1) This Act may be called the Arms Act, 1959.

(2) It extends to the whole of India.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, appoint.

2. Definition and interpretation:

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

…
(e) “firearms” means arms of any description designed or adapted to discharge a projectile or projectiles
of any kind by the action of any explosive or other forms of energy, and includes,—

(i) artillery, hand-grenades, riot-pistols or weapons of any kind designed or adapted for the discharge of
any noxious liquid, gas or other such things,

(ii) accessories for any such firearm designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by the firing
thereof,

(iii) parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, firearms, and

JGLS [Semester A, 2015 – 2016] Page 4

 (iv) carriages, platforms and appliances for mounting, transporting and serving artillery;

(l) “imitation firearm” means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether it is capable
of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile or not.

….

28. Punishment for use and possession of firearms or imitation firearms in certain cases.—
…
(2) If a person, at the time of his committing or being arrested for an offence specified in Schedule 1 to
this Act, has in his possession a firearm or imitation firearm, he shall be guilty of an offence under this
subsection unless he shows that he had it in his possession for a lawful object.

SCHEDULE 1
…
6. Robbery”
Early in the morning of 28 November 2015, Rajinder broke into the house of his former employer and
went to the bedroom where the employer and his wife were sleeping. Rajinder concealed his hand inside
his zipped-up jacket, forcing the material out so as to give the impression that he had a gun. Pointing
towards the employer, in a loud and aggressive voice Rajinder demanded money and the jewelry around
the wife’s neck, and threatened to shoot the employer if he did not comply.

In fear, and believing that Rajinder was in possession of a gun, the employer handed over a substantial
amount of money and the jewelry. Rajinder then left.

Rajinder was charged with robbery, and possession of an imitation firearm during the course of a robbery
contrary to section 28(2) of the Arms Act 1959.

It was eventually accepted that the bulge in his jacket was caused by his hand and fingers.

Using your knowledge of statutory interpretation, discuss whether Rajinder should be convicted of the offence
under section 28(2) of the Arms Act 1959. (10 Marks)

Question 5. Peruse the judicial opinion in the matter of State v. Phillips, (1999) and prepare a case brief with the
facts, rule, issue, holding, disposition and the legal and policy rationale.

The appellant set fire to an unoccupied building. The building had been deserted for many years and had been
condemned as a “firetrap.” The appellant poured several gallons of gasoline throughout the first floor of the
JGLS [Semester A, 2015 – 2016] Page 5
building and then ignited it. The building burned to the ground in thirty minutes. The trial court found her guilty
of arson, a felony in this State. The appellant does not contest that conviction here.

On the way to put out the fire, a fireman was killed when he fell off the back of the fire truck and was run over
by a car that was speeding and following the truck too closely. There was no way the driver of the car could have
avoided the fireman. The driver of the car was charged and convicted of speeding and careless driving.

The appellant was also found guilty of murder under the felony murder rule. She appealed this conviction. The
felony murder rule provides that if someone is killed during the commission of a felony, the defendant is guilty
of murdering that person. The purpose of the rule is to deter people from committing felonies, particularly those
which are inherently dangerous to human life. In this case, there is no doubt the fireman was killed during the
commission of a felony.

Fires and arson are inherently dangerous to people in buildings, bystanders, the surrounding neighborhood, and
firemen summoned to combat the blaze. The appellant should have known that a fire truck would be summoned
to put out the fire, but could not foresee someone would be following the truck too closely. Public policy dictates
that there must be a limit to liability. The felony murder rule borders on strict liability in criminal law. Any
expansion should be carefully scrutinized. As with any principle of strict liability, there must be a causal
connection. Reversed. (10 Marks)

PART B

Answer any four out of five. (4 X 5 Marks = 20 Marks)

1. The ratio of a case must be inferred neither from the reasoning in the judgement nor from the opinion of the
judges. Rather, they are to be read from the facts which the judges treat as material. Argue for or against the
statement. (5 Marks)

2. “Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code provides that a man is said to commit "rape" if he has sexual intercourse
with a woman against her will or without her consent. The woman accusing my poor client of rape is a woman
of loose morals who is habituated to sexual intercourse with several men. Therefore, my client did not commit
rape.” Identify and explain the fallacies in this argument. (5 Marks)

3. It is often observed that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases can amount to ‘judicial overreach’ or ‘judicial
populism’ on the part of the judge. Do you agree with this view? Give reasons and use one case law which
supports your view on the relevance of PIL in India. (5 Marks)

4. Give three differences between adversarial and inquisitorial systems. Which one would you prefer for India
to adopt? (5 Marks)

5. How does common law compare with civil law on the 1)role of judges and 2) sources of the law?
(5 Marks)

JGLS [Semester A, 2015 – 2016] Page 6