Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Provision} & \textbf{Case Law} \\ \hline \text{(A) Strict Liability} & \text{(1) Ryland v. Fletcher} \\ \hline \text{(B) Absolute Liability} & \text{(II) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India} \\ \hline \text{(C) Negligence} & \text{(III) Nicholas v. Marsland} \\ \hline \text{(D) Act of God} & \text{(IV) MCD v. Subhagwanti} \\ \hline \end{array}\]

Question

The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past, it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned.
If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’].

Answer 1

Step 1: Match the following legal theories to their respective proponents.
- Volksgeist: Savigny proposed this theory, emphasizing the influence of a nation's unique spirit on its laws.
- Minimum Morality: Roscoe Pound is associated with this concept, which explores the connection between law and societal morals.
- Command of Sovereign: John Austin's theory posits law as the command of a supreme authority, a key tenet of legal positivism.
- Social Engineering: H. L. A. Hart is linked to this idea, viewing law as an instrument for achieving social advancement.

Step 2: Solution.
The correct matches are (A) (I), (B) (II), (C) (IV), and (D) (III).

Firm 2	Cooperate	Compete
Firm 1	5, 5	0, 10
Compete	10,0	2, 2

Show Hint

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Jurisprudence

Questions Asked in CUET (PG) exam