Judiciary Exam Fundamentals — Writing & Legal Reasoning

Legal Reasoning — How Judges Think

Legal reasoning follows a structured approach. Understanding this helps both in answering exam questions and actual judicial work.

IRAC Method (Issue-Rule-Application-Conclusion)

Every legal problem is solved the same way:

1.Issue: What is the precise legal question?

2.Rule: What does the law say? (Statute + Precedent)

3.Application: How does the rule apply to these facts?

4.Conclusion: What is the result?

Example:

Facts: A is 16 years old. He contracts to buy a motorcycle from B for ₹40,000. A pays ₹20,000. Before delivery, A refuses to complete the contract.

Issue: Is the contract between A and B valid? Can B enforce it?

Rule: Sec 11, Indian Contract Act 1872 — Only persons who are major (18+ under Indian Majority Act), of sound mind, and not disqualified can contract. Minor's contract is void ab initio (Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose, 1903).

Application: A is 16 — a minor. A minor cannot enter into a contract. The contract is void from the very beginning. Being void ab initio, no rights or obligations flow from it.

Conclusion: The contract is void. B cannot enforce it. Regarding the ₹20,000 paid — under Sec 65 Contract Act (restitution applies only to void agreements, not void contracts). Courts have held minors cannot be made to restore benefits in case of a void contract, unless the minor obtained benefits by fraud (Leslie Ltd v Sheill). In India, courts may order restitution under Sec 33 Specific Relief Act in limited circumstances.

Drafting Skills — Order Sheet Writing

Court orders must be concise, precise, and authoritative.

Types of Court Orders

Interlocutory orders: Made during trial — temporary injunction, evidence summons, adjournment

Final orders: Decide rights — decree, acquittal, conviction, judgment

Practice Exercise: Temporary Injunction Order

Facts: Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant constructing on disputed land. Plaintiff prays for interim relief under Order 39 CPC.

Model Order:

Heard learned counsels for both parties on the plaintiff's application 
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

Plaintiff's counsel argues there is a prima facie case as the property 
is subject of registered sale deed dated ___. 

Defendant's counsel disputes title and states construction commenced 
with valid municipal permission.

Having considered submissions, I find:
(i) Prima facie case exists as title is disputed.
(ii) If construction proceeds, plaintiff may suffer irreparable 
    loss difficult to compensate in money.
(iii) Balance of convenience favours maintaining status quo.

Application allowed. Defendant is restrained from raising 
construction on the suit property until further orders.
Defendant to file reply within 15 days. List on ___.

Sd/- Civil Judge
Date:

Current Affairs for Judiciary Exams

Judiciary exams test awareness of recent legal developments:

Recent Landmark Judgments (2022–2024):

•Satender Kumar Antil v CBI (2022): Bail jurisprudence — courts must consider bail more liberally

•Dr. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v UOI (2022): Upheld ED powers under PMLA but conditional

•Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v UOI (2023): Same-sex marriage — not a fundamental right, Parliament to legislate

•Electoral Bonds case (ADR v UOI, 2024): Electoral bonds scheme struck down as unconstitutional

Recent Legislative Changes:

•Three new criminal codes from July 1, 2024: BNS 2023, BNSS 2023, BSA 2023

•DPDP Act 2023 (Digital Personal Data Protection) — data fiduciary obligations

•Arbitration & Conciliation Amendment Act 2021 — 60-day limitation for arbitration awards

30 Problem Questions for Practice

Problem 1:

A posted a letter of acceptance of B's offer on January 1. The letter reached B on January 5. B posted a revocation of offer on January 3. The revocation reached A on January 4. Is there a valid contract?

Answer: Under Sec 4 Contract Act, acceptance is complete as against the proposer when put in course of transmission (postal rule). Acceptance complete: January 1. Revocation of offer must reach acceptor before or at same time as acceptance is complete. Revocation reached A on January 4 — after acceptance (January 1). Therefore, revocation is ineffective. There IS a valid contract from January 1.

Problem 2:

A is alleged to have killed B. A argues he acted in private defence. How should a court evaluate this claim?

Answer: Right of private defence under Secs 34–44 BNS (old Secs 96–106 IPC). The burden of proving private defence is on A (preponderance of probabilities — not beyond reasonable doubt). Court evaluates: (i) Was there real or reasonable apprehension of attack? (ii) Was the force used proportionate? (iii) Was there time to approach police? If A exceeded private defence, Sec 100 BNS (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) applies — reduces offence from murder. If within limits, complete acquittal.

Judiciary Exams (Civil Judge/HJS) — Fundamentals