General Studies 2021 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Explain

Q11

The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting probe within a particular State is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

एक राज्य-विशेष के अंदर प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दायर करने तथा जांच करने के केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो (सी० बी० आई०) के क्षेत्राधिकार पर कई राज्य प्रश्न उठा रहे हैं। हालांकि, सी० बी० आई० जांच के लिए राज्यों द्वारा दी गई सहमति को रोके रखने की शक्ति आत्यंतिक नहीं है। भारत के संघीय ढांचे के विशेष संदर्भ में विवेचना कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 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 clarifying why state consent to CBI is not absolute while connecting this to India's federal structure. Structure: Introduction defining CBI's legal status under DSPE Act, 1946; Body covering consent requirement (Section 6), exceptions where consent is not needed, federalism tension with cooperative federalism principles; Conclusion suggesting balanced approach.

Key points expected

CBI derives powers from Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, requiring state consent under Section 6 for jurisdiction extension
Exceptions to consent requirement: Supreme Court/High Court orders under Article 226/32, CBI's own FIR in Union Territories, cases involving central government employees, inter-state/international ramifications
Federalism dimension: Entry 2 of State List (Police) vs Entry 80 of Union List (extension of powers to states), Article 355 duty to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance
Judicial precedents: Vineet Narain (1997), Nirmal Singh Kahlon (2009) on CBI's independent functioning; recent state withdrawal of consent by Maharashtra, Punjab, West Bengal, Jharkhand
Cooperative federalism vs competitive federalism: CBI as necessary for corruption-free governance in concurrent list subjects
Balanced conclusion on need for CBI autonomy with federal sensitivity, suggesting reforms like CBI autonomy under Lokpal or constitutional status

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly explains why state consent is limited (not absolute) and explicitly links this limitation to federal principles—distinguishing between 'general consent' withdrawal and situations where consent becomes irrelevant	Mentions consent requirement and federalism separately without explaining the non-absolute nature or their interconnection	Treats CBI as purely central agency or ignores federalism dimension entirely; confuses CBI with NIA or other agencies
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately cites Section 6 of DSPE Act, lists all four exceptions to consent, correctly identifies constitutional entries (List I-80, List II-2) and Article 355/356 relevance	Mentions consent requirement and 1-2 exceptions but with minor errors in legal provisions or constitutional articles	Fundamental errors like stating CBI is constitutional body, confusing general with specific consent, or misidentifying legal basis
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: CBI's legal basis → consent mechanism → why not absolute (exceptions + federal duty) → federalism tension → resolution; smooth transitions between legal and constitutional dimensions	Covers points but with abrupt shifts between legal provisions and federalism without clear thematic organization	Disorganized listing of facts; no clear separation between 'consent not absolute' and 'federal character' aspects; missing introduction or conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Cites Vineet Narain or Nirmal Singh Kahlon judgments; mentions specific states withdrawing consent (Maharashtra 2020, Punjab 2018, West Bengal 2018); references recent Supreme Court observations on CBI autonomy	Mentions one judgment or 1-2 state examples without specifics; generic reference to 'recent cases' without names	No case laws or examples; or irrelevant examples like mentioning CBI in 2G/Coal scams without jurisdictional relevance
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes tension into balanced view: CBI autonomy essential for corruption-free federal governance but needs safeguards against misuse; suggests concrete reform (constitutional status, Lokpal oversight, or Supreme Court-monitored SIT as alternative)	Generic conclusion on 'cooperative federalism' without specific linkage to CBI reform or fails to address the 'not absolute' aspect	No conclusion; or purely partisan view (abolish CBI/complete state control) ignoring national interest; mere summary of points

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 →