English - II : Previous Year Questions (2019)

PART – A

 

Q1. What was equal to an extra month's salary for M.C. Chagla?

Ans. For M.C. Chagla, an untroubled conscience was as satisfying as an extra month’s salary.

Q2. When did M.C. Chagla take charge of Chief Justice of Bombay high court?

Ans. On August 15, 1947 M.C. Chagla took the charge of the office of Chief Justice of Bombay high court from Sir Leonard Stone.

Q3. What advice Inverarity give to Bhulabhai Desai?

Ans. Inverarity advised Bhulabhai Desai to trust his own memory. Bhulabhai took this advice to heart, and throughout his career as a lawyer he never made a single note, however long and complicated the case might be. M.C.

Q4. Who was Zafrullah Khan?

Ans. Sir Mohamed Zafrullah Khan of Pakistan was an extremely able and astute lawyer, but not a friendly character, and not very popular with his colleagues. He was a representative of Pakistan at the International Court of Justice.

Q5. Where is the International Court is housed?

Ans. The International Court is housed in the Peace Palace Hague, which was built as a result of a Peace Conference convened by Emperor Nicholas II of Russia in 1899.

Q6. What news did Justice Sikri give to Chagla?

Ans. Justice Sikri gave Chagla the news that Justice A. N. Ray had been appointed Chief Justice of India, superseding Shelat, Hegde, and Grover.

Q7. Write difference between Art and Politics according to M.C. Chagla.

Ans. M.C. Chagla distinguishes the two by stating that politics deals with the particular and the ephemeral (temporary), whereas arts seek to express the universal and the eternal.

Q8. Which Articles were suspended during Emergency?

Ans. Article 14, 21 and 22 were suspended during the emergency.

Q9. Who was Paul Robeson?

Ans. Paul Robeson was a famous African-American athlete, singer, actor, and advocate for the civil rights of people around the world.

Q10. What was the case between India and Portugal which was taken up in The International Court of Justice?

Ans. The case between India and Portugal which was taken up in the international court of justice was concerned with Portugal, which claimed to have the right of passage through the territory of India in order to ensure communications between its territory of daman and its enclave territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

PART – B

Q11. Explain the following terms:

1. Axiom - A statement accepted to be true by all, without any proof

Sentence: “Honesty is the best policy” is considered an axiom in moral teaching.

2. Judicature - Administration of justice as by judges or courts.

Sentence: The judicature of the country plays an important role in protecting citizens’ rights.

3. ad extremum - To the extreme, at last, finally.

Sentence: The discussion continued ad extremum before a final decision was taken.

4. ad initium - At the beginning.

Sentence: The teacher explained the basics ad initium so that everyone could understand the topic clearly.

Q12. Explain the following idioms:

1. Null and void – Having no legal force; invalid.

Sentence: The agreement was declared null and void by the court.

2. An act of God – A natural event beyond human control, such as a flood or earthquake.

Sentence: The insurance company refused compensation because the damage was caused by an act of God.

3. Have a brush with the law – To get into trouble with the police or legal authorities.

Sentence: He had a brush with the law after breaking traffic rules.

4. In black and white – in writing

Sentence: The terms of the contract were stated in black and white.

Q13. Give one word for:

1. One who does not believe in the existence of God - Atheist
2. One who is unable to pay his debts - Insolvent
3. A form of Government in which power is held by the nobility - Aristocracy
4. Act of intentionally causing one's own death - Suicide

Q14. Make two words from each of the following suffixes:

1. ment – government, commitment
2. ship – internship, fellowship
3. ful – beautiful, colourful
4. less – helpless, timeless

PART – C

Q15. Write a letter to the Editor of a legal Journal to accept an article for publication.

Ans.

To

The Editor

India Law Journal

Date: 8 May 2026

Subject: Acceptance of Article for Publication

Respected Sir/Madam,

I am pleased to inform you that I have recently gone through the article submitted by you titled “The Changing Dimensions of Law in Modern Society.” After careful reading and consideration, I find the article highly informative, well-researched, and suitable for publication in our journal.

The article presents a clear analysis of contemporary legal issues and reflects sound understanding of the subject. The arguments are well-structured, and the language used is appropriate for an academic legal journal. I am particularly impressed by the relevance of the topic in today’s context.

I hereby formally accept your article for publication in the upcoming issue of the India Law Journal. Kindly ensure that the final proof is checked and any necessary minor corrections are completed before printing.

We appreciate your contribution and look forward to receiving more quality submissions from you in the future.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

Editor

India Law Journal

Q16. Describe M.C. Chagla's tenure as 'Chief Justice'.

Ans. M. C. Chagla is presented as a deeply committed, independent, and reform-oriented Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. He assumed office on 15 August 1947, succeeding Sir Leonard Stone, at a crucial moment when India had just attained independence. Chagla describes that although he initially felt anxious and burdened by the immense responsibilities of the office, he approached his duties with determination, sincerity, and complete dedication.

One of the most striking aspects of Chagla’s personality as Chief Justice was his extraordinary sense of duty and discipline. He believed that the administration of justice required constant commitment and punctuality. In his autobiography, he proudly notes that he never absented himself from court even for a single day. To him, the satisfaction of performing judicial duties honestly was more valuable than any financial reward or additional salary. This reflects his deep respect for the judiciary and his belief that judges must serve as guardians of justice rather than seekers of privilege.

Chagla also displayed remarkable administrative insight and practical wisdom. Upon becoming Chief Justice, he carefully observed the weaknesses within the judicial system. He noticed that several judges lacked adequate judicial experience or had remained disconnected from actual judicial work for a long period. Chagla strongly believed that judges should either be selected from experienced practising advocates or from district judges actively engaged in judicial administration. According to him, only such persons could understand the realities of litigation and dispense effective justice. This reveals his practical and reformist approach towards the judiciary.

Another important feature of Chagla’s personality was his fearless independence. He firmly believed that the judiciary must remain impartial and should never function under government influence. Consequently, he delivered several judgments against the government whenever he felt that citizens’ rights or constitutional principles were being violated. He considered the judiciary to be the protector of individual liberty and democratic values.

His liberal and humanitarian outlook became particularly visible in matters relating to preventive detention. Chagla openly disliked and criticized the Preventive Detention Act because he believed that such laws could easily threaten personal freedom in a democratic society. Whenever he found loopholes, procedural irregularities, or misuse of power by the government, he did not hesitate to release detainees. This demonstrated his courage, compassion, and unwavering faith in civil liberties and the rule of law.

Chagla was also a great judicial reformer who sought to modernise and democratise the Bombay High Court. At that time, there existed distinctions and tensions between the Appellate Side and the Original Side of the court. Chagla attempted to remove these divisions and foster harmony within the legal profession. He emphasized that every advocate should have the right to practise on both sides of the court without discrimination. This reflected his belief in equality, professional unity, and fairness.

Furthermore, he worked to simplify and improve the judicial structure. He abolished the distinction between “pleaders” and “advocates,” thereby promoting equality among legal practitioners. He also changed the designation of subordinate judges to “Civil Judges,” which gave greater dignity and uniformity to the subordinate judiciary. These reforms indicate his progressive outlook and administrative efficiency.

Thus, as portrayed in Roses in December, M. C. Chagla emerges as a disciplined, fearless, liberal, and reform-minded Chief Justice. His integrity, devotion to duty, concern for civil liberties, and efforts to strengthen the judiciary made him one of the most respected judges in independent India.

Q17. Describe M.C. Chagla's views on Emergency, as expressed in his autobiography.

Ans. M.C. Chagla describes the period of Internal Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 26 June 1975 as the “darkest hour” in Indian history. In his book ‘Roses in December’, he strongly criticizes the Emergency and considers it one of the gravest attacks on democracy and individual freedom in independent India. The Emergency lasted for about twenty months and, according to Chagla, brought fear, oppression, and injustice throughout the country.

Chagla believed that two important events led to the declaration of Emergency. The first was the victory of the Janata Party in the Gujarat elections, which weakened the political position of Mrs. Gandhi. The second was the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which found Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt electoral practices. According to Chagla, instead of resigning and respecting democratic traditions, she imposed the Emergency in order to retain power.

As soon as the Emergency was declared, opposition leaders were arrested during the night and thousands of political workers were imprisoned. Press censorship was imposed on an unprecedented scale, and citizens lost their fundamental freedoms. Chagla points out that Presidential Orders suspended important Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. Even the right to approach courts through writs such as habeas corpus was taken away.

Chagla writes that the country was suddenly covered with an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. The names and whereabouts of detainees were often not disclosed, and people had no legal remedy against unlawful detention. According to him, “darkness swept over the country,” and the people were left without hope or freedom. He believed that there was actually no serious internal disturbance in the country that justified such drastic action.

Chagla was deeply disturbed by the misuse of constitutional powers during this period. He held Mrs. Gandhi mainly responsible for the suffering, injustice, and suppression faced by the people under the Emergency. He considered the entire period shameful for Indian democracy and felt that democratic institutions were weakened severely.

Even after the Emergency ended, Chagla observed that Indira Gandhi never openly admitted her mistake or expressed regret for the hardships caused to the people. Instead, she attempted to justify the Emergency and defend her actions. Chagla strongly disagreed with this attitude and believed that the people of India had suffered greatly because of authoritarian rule.

Thus, M.C. Chagla called the Emergency the “darkest hour” because it destroyed civil liberties, weakened democracy, suppressed freedom of expression, and created an atmosphere of fear and oppression in the country. In his view, it was one of the most painful and unfortunate periods in the history of independent India.

Q18. Describe M.C. Chagla's experiences at 'The Bar'.

Ans. M.C. Chagla’s journey at the Bombay Bar, is a classic story of struggle, learning, and final success. When he returned to India in 1922 after studying at Oxford, he didn't have any clients or family connections in the legal world. He went through a long "briefless" period where he had no work. Instead of giving up, he treated the High Court like a classroom, sitting in the galleries to watch great lawyers like Sir Jamshedji Kanga and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He believed that even if you don't have cases, you must remain "attached" to the court to learn the art of advocacy.

A major turning point in his early career was the sensational Trunk Murder Case. While many thought of Chagla as mainly a civil lawyer, this famous criminal case proved his skills to everyone. A man had been murdered, and his body was found packed in a trunk that was left in a taxi and later dumped in a well. Chagla represented the second accused person in the trial. Despite the "overwhelming evidence" and the gruesome nature of the crime, he managed to secure an acquittal for his client. This victory was a huge boost to his reputation and showed that he was a methodical lawyer who could handle high-pressure situations. In fact, the title of his book, Roses in December, comes from a moment after a murder trial when a grateful client brought him roses in the winter; a symbol of unexpected success.

Another key part of his experience was his time in Jinnah’s chambers. Chagla spent six years as Jinnah's junior, which he called a "truly transformative experience." He was fascinated by Jinnah's clear logic and "artistic" way of presenting a case. From Jinnah, he learned that a lawyer’s first duty is to his client, but he must never lose his dignity or suck up to the judges. This period taught him that the independence of the Bar is the most important thing in a democracy. He also worked on other big cases like the Meerut Conspiracy case, where he stood alongside legendary figures like Motilal Nehru.

Ultimately, Chagla’s time at the Bar wasn't just about winning cases; it was about building a character of integrity and hard work. He was known for being incredibly thorough and for his "quick grasp" of legal points. These years of hard practice at the Bombay High Court prepared him to eventually become a judge in 1941 and, later, the first Indian Chief Justice of that same court. His story shows that for a student of law, the Bar is a place where you develop the courage and discipline needed to serve the cause of justice for a lifetime.