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

Q2

Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

विविधता, समता और समावेशिता सुनिश्चित करने के लिए उच्चतर न्यायपालिका में महिलाओं के प्रतिनिधित्व को बढ़ाने की वांछनीयता पर चर्चा कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' requires a balanced examination of arguments for and against greater women's representation in higher judiciary, culminating in a reasoned position. Structure: brief introduction linking underrepresentation to constitutional values; body presenting arguments for diversity (different lived experiences, inclusive jurisprudence) and addressing counter-arguments (merit concerns); conclusion with way forward including collegium transparency and structural reforms.

Key points expected

Recognition of current underrepresentation: only 3 women judges in Supreme Court history, ~11% in High Courts despite 50% women law graduates
Constitutional mandate: Articles 14, 15, 39A and separation of powers requiring diverse perspectives in constitutional interpretation
Substantive representation argument: women judges contribute distinct experiential understanding in cases involving gender-based violence, matrimonial disputes, workplace harassment
Merit vs. diversity debate: addressing concerns about lowering standards while arguing for systemic barriers in elevation process
Structural barriers: opaque collegium system, lack of women in senior litigation, invisible criteria for elevation
Way forward: transparent selection criteria, mentorship programs, regional representation, potential All-India Judicial Service with reservation

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	15%	1.5	Demonstrates 'discuss' by presenting multiple perspectives (desirability arguments, practical constraints, constitutional imperatives) without becoming polemical; maintains analytical balance rather than advocacy	Partially addresses 'discuss' with one-sided argumentation or lists points without weighing contradictions; conflates 'discuss' with 'enumerate'	Misreads directive as 'justify' or 'argue'; presents only affirmative case without acknowledging complexities or opposing views
Content depth & accuracy	25%	2.5	Accurately cites constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 15, 39A, 50), references specific structural barriers in judicial appointments, and connects diversity to quality of adjudication	Generic mention of gender equality without specific constitutional anchoring; vague references to 'reservation' without distinguishing higher judiciary appointment mechanisms	Factual errors about judicial appointment process (confusing executive appointment with collegium); irrelevant discussion of women's reservation in legislature
Structure & flow	20%	2	Compact 150-word structure with clear progression: context → arguments for representation → counter-arguments/qualifications → synthesis; smooth transitions between dimensions of diversity, equity, inclusiveness	Adequate structure but uneven weightage (overlong introduction or conclusion); body paragraphs not clearly demarcated by thematic focus	Disjointed flow with abrupt shifts; no logical sequencing; conclusion merely restates introduction without advancement
Examples / case-law / data	25%	2.5	Specific data: Justice Fathima Beevi (1989) as first woman SC judge, current women judges count, 2018 CJI recommendation for transparency; references judgments like Vishaka (1997) or Joseph Shine (2018) where gender perspective mattered	Vague reference to 'few women judges' without numbers; generic mention of 'landmark cases' without specificity	No data or examples; or irrelevant examples (women in subordinate judiciary, foreign judicial systems without comparative relevance)
Conclusion & analytical edge	15%	1.5	Forward-looking conclusion addressing institutional legitimacy crisis; specific actionable recommendations (collegium transparency, elevation criteria publication, structural reforms); nuanced position on merit-diversity synthesis	Generic conclusion calling for 'more representation' without institutional specificity; or abrupt ending without synthesis	No conclusion; or purely rhetorical conclusion ('women should be empowered'); contradicts own arguments or introduces new unsupported claims

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 →