Answering examinations, working out problems and applying law to facts

1. Preparing for the examination

• Know the paper. Read the syllabus and the last five question papers. Topics repeat, often in the same words. Note the pattern: in this paper, one essay (10 marks) and one short note (6 marks) from each of five units.
• Make your own notes unit by unit: definitions, sections, cases with a one-line ratio, and a list of points for each probable question.
• Learn the authorities accurately — the section number, the case name and year. A wrong section number does more harm than none.
• Practise writing answers to time. Reading is not the same skill as writing.
• Revise from short notes in the last week, not from textbooks.

2. Writing the answers

1. Read the whole paper and the instructions first. Choose the questions you can answer best, within the choices allowed.
2. Plan time by marks. In a 3-hour, 80-mark paper, a 10-mark answer gets about 22 minutes and a 6-mark note about 13. Leave ten minutes to revise.
3. Answer the question asked. “Distinguish” wants differences; “discuss” wants both sides and a view; “explain with illustrations” wants examples. Underline the key words in the question.
4. Plan the answer in a few lines before writing.
5. Structure. Introduction (definition or context), body under headings or numbered points, conclusion. Examiners read quickly; headings help them find your points.
6. Support every legal statement with a section, case or authority.
7. Write clearly and legibly, in short paragraphs, in one language throughout (the KSLU instruction is English or Kannada completely).
8. Number the answers correctly, and start each on a fresh page.
9. Do not leave a question unattempted; a short relevant answer earns marks.

Short notes (6 marks): a one-line definition, four to six points, one authority or example, a closing line. One to one and a half pages.

3. Applying law to facts

Applying law to facts is the central legal skill. It is a form of deductive reasoning, the legal syllogism:

• Major premise (the rule): whoever dishonestly takes movable property out of the possession of another without consent commits theft (section 303 BNS).
• Minor premise (the facts): A dishonestly took B’s phone from B’s bag without consent.
• Conclusion: A has committed theft.

Real cases are harder than the syllogism suggests, because each premise must be worked out:

1. Find the facts — which facts are proved, and which are material.
2. Identify the legal issue — what question of law those facts raise.
3. Find the rule — the statute, the precedent, the principle.
4. Interpret the rule — does the word “possession” or “dishonestly” cover these facts? This is where fringe meaning and the rules of interpretation come in.
5. Apply — match each element of the rule to the facts, one by one.
6. Consider exceptions and defences.
7. Conclude — and state the remedy or consequence.

Where no rule fits exactly, the reasoning becomes analogical: the court compares the facts with decided cases and asks whether the differences are material.

4. The problem method (IRAC)

Problem questions give a set of facts and ask for advice. Use four headings:

Do not rewrite the facts. Do not add facts that are not given; if a fact is missing, say what the answer would be either way. Problems often contain several issues; take them one at a time.

5. Worked problem 1: a precedent problem

A Civil Judge in Mysuru is deciding a suit. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has decided the point one way; a later two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has decided it the other way in a case from another State, without noticing an earlier three-judge Supreme Court decision that agrees with the High Court. Which decision should the Civil Judge follow?

Issue. Which precedent binds a subordinate court when the Supreme Court decisions conflict.

Rule. The law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts (Article 141) and prevails over a High Court decision. Where Supreme Court decisions conflict, the decision of the larger bench prevails (Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, 1989; Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, 2004). A decision given in ignorance of a binding larger-bench decision is per incuriam.

Application. The two-judge decision prevails over the High Court in the ordinary way, but it conflicts with an earlier three-judge decision that it did not notice. The three-judge decision is of a larger bench and binds the two-judge bench; the later decision is per incuriam on this point.

Conclusion. The Civil Judge should follow the three-judge Supreme Court decision, which also agrees with the High Court.

6. Worked problem 2: applying a statute

A rule of a municipal park says: “No vehicle shall be taken into the park.” X rides a bicycle in; Y, a disabled person, enters in a motorised wheelchair; Z drives an ambulance in to reach a visitor who has collapsed. Advise the park authority.

Issue. Whether each is a “vehicle” within the rule.

Rule. Words take their ordinary meaning (literal rule) unless that leads to absurdity (golden rule); the purpose of the rule, safety and quiet in the park, guides doubtful cases (mischief rule).

Application. An ambulance is in the core meaning of “vehicle”, but applying the rule literally to stop emergency help would defeat the rule’s own purpose of protecting visitors; the golden rule permits an implied exception for emergencies. A bicycle is in the fringe; it endangers walkers, which is the mischief, so it is likely covered. A wheelchair is a mobility aid for a person, not the kind of vehicle the rule targets; excluding a disabled person would also offend the equality principle and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Conclusion. X breaches the rule; Y and Z do not.

How this is examined

The exam-tips question needs sections 1 and 2 as numbered points. The application of law to facts needs the syllogism with an example and the seven steps. For “working out problems” or “problem solving method” give IRAC with a short illustration such as problem 2.