General Studies 2021 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q1

'Constitutional Morality' is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of 'Constitutional Morality' with the help of relevant judicial decisions. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

'संवैधानिक नैतिकता' की जड़ संविधान में ही निहित है और इसके तात्विक फलकों पर आधारित है। 'संवैधानिक नैतिकता' के सिद्धांत की प्रासंगिक न्यायिक निर्णयों की सहायता से विवेचना कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'explain' requires a clear exposition of the doctrine's meaning, origins, and judicial application. Structure: brief definitional introduction → elaboration of constitutional sources (Preamble, FRs, DPSPs, Basic Structure) → 2-3 landmark case illustrations → concluding significance for Indian democracy, all within 150 words.

Key points expected

Definition: Constitutional morality as values embedded in the Constitution transcending popular/majoritarian morality (Ambedkar's concept)
Constitutional sources: Preamble ideals, Fundamental Rights (especially Articles 14, 15, 19, 21), DPSPs, and Basic Structure
Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Decriminalization of Section 377, privacy as intrinsic to dignity, rejection of majoritarian morality
Puttaswamy (2017): Right to privacy as part of constitutional morality under Article 21
Sabarimala (2018) or other relevant cases: Constitutional morality vs. religious customs, equality over exclusionary practices
Contemporary relevance: Tool for protecting minority rights, ensuring inclusive constitutionalism against populist pressures

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Demonstrates precise grasp that 'explain' requires unpacking the doctrine's conceptual foundations AND demonstrating how it operates through judicial decisions; avoids mere description or definition-only response	Partially addresses both components but treats them sequentially without integration; may over-define without showing judicial application	Misreads directive as 'define' or 'list cases' only; fails to establish explanatory linkage between doctrine and case law
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately identifies Ambedkar's conceptual origin, distinguishes constitutional from popular morality, and correctly maps doctrine to specific constitutional provisions (FRs, Basic Structure)	Correct basic definition but vague on constitutional sources or conflates constitutional morality with constitutionalism/ethics generally	Factual errors in citing constitutional provisions or misattributing doctrine's origin; confuses with statutory morality or basic structure alone
Structure & flow	20%	2	Tight 150-word architecture: conceptual hook → constitutional anchoring → 2-3 cases as proof → synthesis; seamless transitions despite compression	Readable but either front-loaded with definition leaving cramped case discussion, or case-heavy with weak conceptual framing; minor word limit violations	Disorganized or bullet-point dump; severe imbalance (e.g., 100 words on theory, 20 on cases); exceeds word limit significantly or grossly underutilizes space
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Precisely cites Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Puttaswamy (2017) with specific holdings; optionally Sabarimala or Naz Foundation; shows how each case operationalized the doctrine	Names correct cases but provides generic descriptions ('court upheld rights') without specific doctrine-application linkage; or cites only one major case	Irrelevant or wrongly cited cases (e.g., Kesavananda without connecting to morality doctrine); omits case law entirely; cites only pre-2010 cases missing doctrinal evolution
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Concludes with sharp insight: constitutional morality as counter-majoritarian bulwark, or tension with societal morality, or its role in transformative constitutionalism; shows independent analytical grasp	Generic concluding statement about importance of constitution; no distinctive insight or merely restates introduction	No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body; purely descriptive closing without any evaluative or forward-looking element

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →