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

Q12

Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

यद्यपि मानवाधिकार आयोगों ने भारत में मानव अधिकारों के संरक्षण में काफी हद तक योगदान दिया है, फिर भी वे ताकतवर और प्रभावशालियों के विरुद्ध अधिकार जताने में असफल रहे हैं। इनकी संरचनात्मक और व्यावहारिक सीमाओं का विश्लेषण करते हुए सुधारात्मक उपायों के सुझाव दीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to analyse. 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 'analyse' requires breaking down the question into components: examining why HRCs have failed against the powerful despite contributions, dissecting structural and practical limitations, and then suggesting remedies. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging dual reality → body analysing limitations (structural: composition, tenure, powers; practical: delay, non-compliance) → remedial measures → conclusion with forward-looking synthesis.

Key points expected

  • Constitutional/statutory basis: NHRC under Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, SHRCs under state laws; composition issues (retired judges, limited diversity)
  • Structural limitations: recommendatory not binding powers (Section 18), no contempt power, limited enforcement mechanism, dependence on government for funds and staff
  • Practical limitations: pendency of cases (NHRC backlog), delay in inquiries, non-compliance by state agencies (police, bureaucracy), limited follow-up on recommendations
  • Specific instances of failure against powerful: delayed response in high-profile cases, limited action in custodial deaths, communal violence cases where state machinery involved
  • Remedial measures: binding recommendations, contempt powers, independent investigation wing, statutory time limits, suo motu powers strengthening, NHRC as party in PILs
  • Balanced conclusion: HRCs as 'watchdogs not bloodhounds'—need autonomy plus cooperative federalism, not confrontation

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%3Clearly distinguishes between 'analysing limitations' and 'suggesting remedies'; addresses the tension between 'contributed immensely' and 'failed against mighty'; does not merely describe but examines causal relationshipsAddresses both parts of question but treats limitations and remedies as separate lists without analytical linkage; misses the 'despite' tension in the premiseMisreads directive as 'describe' or 'list'; ignores either limitations or remedies entirely; fails to engage with 'failed against mighty' aspect
Content depth & accuracy20%3Precise reference to PHRA 1993 provisions (Sections 18, 19, 20); distinguishes NHRC from SHRC powers; accurate on 1993 Act amendments; mentions Vishaka guidelines, PUCL v. Union of India contextGeneral awareness of HRC functions but vague on statutory provisions; conflates NHRC with other bodies like NCM, NCSC; some factual errors on powersConfuses HRCs with judiciary or NGT; incorrect on binding nature of orders; fundamental misunderstanding of recommendatory vs adjudicatory role
Structure & flow20%3Logical progression: context → structural limitations → practical limitations → remedies → synthesis; clear subheadings or paragraph transitions; 250-word discipline maintained with proportional allocationCovers all parts but uneven weightage (e.g., lengthy preamble, rushed conclusion); some repetition between structural and practical limitations; readable but not optimally organisedDisorganised or haphazard; no clear separation between analysis and suggestions; exceeds word limit significantly or leaves major component incomplete
Examples / case-law / data20%3Specific illustrations: NHRC recommendations in 2002 Gujarat riots (non-compliance), Bhopal gas tragedy follow-up, custodial death cases like Thoothukudi or Sathankulam; mentions Annual Reports data on pendency; references like D.K. Basu guidelines implementation gapGeneric mention of 'custodial deaths' or 'communal violence' without specificity; no data on case disposal; examples correct but not tied to 'failure against powerful'No examples at all; or irrelevant examples (foreign HRCs, UN bodies); fabricated case names; examples that actually demonstrate HRC success, undermining the premise
Conclusion & analytical edge20%3Synthesises that autonomy requires accountability—suggests parliamentary oversight of HRCs themselves; balances realism (cannot rival courts) with aspiration (strengthened TRC model); mentions pending Human Rights Courts under Section 30 PHRA; forward-looking without being utopianStandard conclusion summarising points; generic call for 'strengthening HRCs'; no original insight; may drift into unrelated human rights discourseNo conclusion; or abrupt ending; contradictory conclusion praising HRCs without addressing the question's critique; purely emotional appeal without structural reasoning

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 →

More from General Studies 2021 GS Paper II