This post maps every sub-question of the Law optional papers of the Civil Services (Main) Examination 2025 to its head in the UPSC syllabus, and then sets out what the pattern tells a candidate preparing for the next attempt.
How to read the weightage figures.
All percentages here are computed on marks offered per topic across all eight questions in a section (200 marks per section) — not on marks attempted. Since a candidate answers only five of eight questions, your effective personal weightage depends on which questions you choose.
The Structure of the Paper
Both papers follow the standard Law optional structure:
- Eight questions in two sections, Section A and Section B.
- Question 1 and Question 5 are compulsory, each carrying five sub-parts of 10 marks (answered in about 150 words each).
- The remaining questions carry 20 + 15 + 15 marks.
- Candidates attempt five questions in all, choosing at least one from each section.
The consequence of that design deserves stating plainly: the split between the two halves of each paper is 50:50, and because you must answer from both sections, neither half can be abandoned.
Paper I — Constitutional and Administrative Law + Public International Law
| Q | Sub-topic asked | Syllabus head |
|---|---|---|
| 1(a) | Executive power over Concurrent List subjects (Arts. 73/162/254) | Centre–State relations |
| 1(b) | L. Chandra Kumar (1997); administrative tribunals | Administrative law — tribunals / judicial review |
| 1(c) | President’s power to consult the Supreme Court (Art. 143) | Union executive / judiciary |
| 1(d) | Article 21 — right to die vs dignified life | Fundamental Rights |
| 1(e) | Separation of powers — classical form | Constitutionalism / administrative law |
| 2(a) | Parliamentary privileges, expulsion, judicial review | Parliament |
| 2(b) | DPSP fundamental in governance; implementing legislation | Directive Principles |
| 2(c) | Basic structure doctrine and Article 368 | Amendment of the Constitution |
| 3(a) | Judicial review of administrative action | Administrative law |
| 3(b) | Parliament legislating on the State List (Arts. 249/250/252/253) | Centre–State relations |
| 3(c) | Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Article 39A | Access to justice / DPSP |
| 4(a) | Governor’s pardoning power (Art. 161) | State executive |
| 4(b) | 44th Amendment and Article 352 emergency safeguards | Emergency provisions |
| 4(c) | Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 | Ombudsman / administrative law |
| 5(a) | Anticipatory / pre-emptive self-defence (Art. 51, UN Charter) | Lawful recourse to force |
| 5(b) | UN General Assembly — limitations | UN organs |
| 5(c) | Theories of State succession | State recognition and succession |
| 5(d) | Rome Statute — “crime against humanity” | International Criminal Court |
| 5(e) | Contiguous Zone; the Indian position | Law of the Sea |
| 6(a) | Security Council — failure, composition and reform | UN organs and reform |
| 6(b) | Innocent passage; the Indian position | Law of the Sea |
| 6(c) | Acquisition of territorial sovereignty by new States | Territorial jurisdiction |
| 7(a) | Nationality — meaning, acquisition; nationality vs citizenship | Individuals / nationality |
| 7(b) | Treaty reservations under the VCLT, 1969 | Treaties |
| 7(c) | MFN and national treatment; WTO Dispute Settlement Body | International trade / WTO |
| 8(a) | Nuclear weapons and the TPNW, 2017 | Legality of nuclear weapons |
| 8(b) | Types of asylum — territorial vs extraterritorial | Asylum |
| 8(c) | Modes of dispute settlement — negotiation vs mediation | Peaceful settlement of disputes |
Paper II — Law of Crimes and Torts + Contracts and Mercantile Law
| Q | Sub-topic asked | Syllabus head |
|---|---|---|
| 1(a) | Foreseeability vs proximity — the test of remoteness | Torts — remoteness of damage |
| 1(b) | “Public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Crimes — recent statutory developments |
| 1(c) | Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 — salient features | Crimes — recent statutory developments |
| 1(d) | Master’s liability for the torts of his servant | Torts — vicarious liability |
| 1(e) | Commutation of death / life sentence | Crimes — kinds of punishment |
| 2(a) | Homicide; culpable homicide amounting and not amounting to murder | Crimes — offences against the human body |
| 2(b) | Right of private defence, reasonably exercised | Crimes — general exceptions |
| 2(c) | “Nuisance is no branch of negligence” | Torts — nuisance |
| 3(a) | Law of defamation — reputation vs free speech | Torts — defamation |
| 3(b) | Ubi jus ibi remedium | Torts — nature and remedies |
| 3(c) | Offences against marriage | Crimes — offences against marriage |
| 4(a) | Dacoity as aggravated theft and robbery | Crimes — offences against property |
| 4(b) | Joint offenders — liability joint and several | Torts — joint tortfeasors * |
| 4(c) | Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — mediation cell | Torts — Consumer Protection / ADR |
| 5(a) | Unjust enrichment under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 | Quasi-contracts |
| 5(b) | Breach of a contract of sale — buyer’s and seller’s remedies | Sale of Goods Act, 1930 |
| 5(c) | Liability of an outgoing partner | Partnership Act, 1932 |
| 5(d) | Certifying officer — administrative, not quasi-judicial | Mercantile / regulatory * |
| 5(e) | Public Interest Litigation as a tool | Contemporary legal developments |
| 6(a) | Agreements in restraint of trade void (S. 27); exceptions | Void agreements |
| 6(b) | Absolute acceptance; departure from the terms of the offer | Formation of contract |
| 6(c) | Coercion vs undue influence | Free consent |
| 7(a) | Parties must perform or offer to perform | Performance and discharge |
| 7(b) | Competition Act, 2002 — horizontal and vertical agreements (S. 3) | Competition law (contemporary) |
| 7(c) | Precautionary principle and polluter-pays | Environmental law / sustainable development |
| 8(a) | Right to Information Act — obligations of public authorities | RTI (contemporary) |
| 8(b) | Certainty of an arbitration agreement | Arbitration and Conciliation Act |
| 8(c) | Trademark infringement and passing off — remedies | IPR (contemporary) |
* Two items sit in ambiguous placement. Paper II 4(b) (“joint offenders — liability joint and several”) is worded like criminal joint liability but reads doctrinally as joint tortfeasors; and 5(d) (“certifying officer”) is not a mainstream syllabus term and most likely ties to a regulatory or mercantile statute. Both are worth verifying against the official topic list rather than taken as settled.
Weightage at a Glance
The four charts below show how the 200 marks offered in each section were distributed across syllabus heads. Percentages are of marks offered, not attempted.
Paper I — Section A: Constitutional & Administrative Law
Paper I — Section B: Public International Law
Paper II — Section A: Law of Crimes & Torts
Paper II — Section B: Contracts & Mercantile Law
What the 2025 Papers Tell an Aspirant
1. The examiner stayed inside the syllabus
There were no out-of-syllabus or surprise questions in either paper. Nearly every unit of the notified syllabus is sampled at least once. That single fact rewards the candidate who prepares the bare Acts systematically rather than selectively, and it undercuts the common strategy of guessing at “important” topics.
Paper I is spread thin and even. Administrative law is the heaviest single head in Section A, at roughly 28% of the marks offered, while in Section B the United Nations and the Law of the Sea anchor the paper between them.
2. Case law is not optional
Paper II carries the express instruction to “support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements”. Paper I goes further and frames questions around named authority — L. Chandra Kumar in terms, and the doctrinal lines behind Article 21 and the basic structure.
An answer that cites and applies authority will consistently outscore accurate but bookish reproduction. This is the most reliable differentiator in the optional.
3. Contemporary and allied statutes dominate Paper II, Section B
This is the most striking feature of the 2025 papers, and the one most likely to catch a candidate out.
In the Contracts and Mercantile Law section, RTI, the Competition Act 2002, environmental principles, trademark and IPR, and PIL together account for roughly 38% of the marks offered — more than any core Contract Act topic. A candidate who treats these as peripheral, to be read if time permits, forfeits a large and comparatively easy scoring block.
4. The framing is critical, not descriptive
The dominant instruction words are “critically examine”, “critically analyse”, “do you think” and “discuss” — not “describe” or “state”.
Structured argument that states a counter-view scores better than one-sided recall. That is true above all of the evergreen debate questions in these papers: defamation against free speech, the critique that Article 368 makes amendment too facile, and Security Council reform. On each of those, an answer that never acknowledges the other side has capped its own marks.
5. Strategy takeaways
- Prepare the whole syllabus. Because you choose five of eight, question selection is where marks are won and lost — and you cannot select well from a narrow base.
- Build a case-law bank for both papers. One crisp authority per sub-topic, with the proposition it stands for, is the differentiator.
- Do not neglect the allied statutes in Paper II — Prevention of Corruption Act, Protection of Civil Rights Act, Consumer Protection Act 2019, Competition Act, RTI, Arbitration and trademark — nor the environmental principles.
- Practise two-sided answers within the word limit. Q1 and Q5 give you about 150 words per sub-part; a critical answer in 150 words is a skill that has to be drilled, not improvised in the hall.
A Note on Method
The mapping above is question-by-question, which is deliberate. Aggregate “topic weightage” tables circulating for optional papers often smooth over exactly the detail a candidate needs — whether a topic appeared as a 10-mark compulsory sub-part or as a 20-mark lead question, and whether it sat in a section the candidate is likely to attempt. Reading the mapping alongside the marks structure is more useful than reading a percentage on its own.
Candidates preparing for other legal examinations may find the same approach useful in our Law Exams section.
Disclaimer: This analysis maps the Law optional papers of the Civil Services (Main) Examination 2025 to the UPSC syllabus and reflects the author’s own reading of the question papers. Weightage figures are computed on marks offered per topic, not marks attempted. Two sub-questions are flagged above as ambiguous in their syllabus placement. Candidates should verify the question papers and the notified syllabus from the official UPSC website before relying on this analysis for preparation. This post is published for information and academic purposes only and is not legal advice. Please read our Disclaimer for more details.