General Studies 2022 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

"The most significant achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court." Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

"भारत में आधुनिक कानून की सर्वाधिक महत्वपूर्ण उपलब्धि सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पर्यावरणीय समस्याओं का संविधानीकरण है।" सुसंगत वाद विधियों की सहायता से इस कथन की विवेचना कीजिए। (150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 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 both the validity and limitations of the statement. Structure as: brief introduction acknowledging constitutionalization → body with 2-3 landmark cases demonstrating SC's role → nuanced assessment (achievements + gaps) → concise conclusion on whether this is indeed the 'most significant' achievement.

Key points expected

Recognition of environmental rights as part of Article 21 (Right to Life) through judicial interpretation
Substantial Environment Protection Act, 1986 and its implementation gaps that prompted judicial intervention
Landmark cases: MC Mehta (Ganga pollution, Oleum gas leak), Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, TN Godavarman (forest conservation)
Evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as enabling mechanism for environmental justice
Critical perspective: over-reliance on judiciary indicates legislative/executive failure; implementation challenges despite orders
Sustainable development principle and polluter pays doctrine developed through judicial innovation

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Recognizes 'discuss' requires balanced treatment—acknowledges SC's constitutionalization achievements while questioning if this is the 'most significant' or reflects institutional failure; addresses both sides of the proposition	Partially addresses the statement; either overly celebratory of SC role or dismissive without nuance; misses the evaluative element in 'most significant'	Misinterprets directive as mere description; treats statement as absolute truth without examination; or completely contradicts without engagement
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately explains constitutionalization mechanism (Article 21 expansion, fundamental duty Article 51A(g), directive principle 48A); correctly identifies 1980s-90s as pivotal period; distinguishes between rights-based and regulatory approaches	Basic understanding of environmental rights in Constitution but conflates statutory and constitutional sources; vague on timeline or mechanism of constitutionalization	Fundamental errors: confuses environmental laws with constitutional provisions; incorrect attribution of cases; misstates legal principles like polluter pays
Structure & flow	20%	2	Clear 3-part structure within 150 words: thesis statement → 2-3 case illustrations with logical progression (chronological/thematic) → synthesis conclusion; smooth transitions between judicial innovation and critical assessment	Recognizable structure but cases listed without clear linkage; conclusion merely summarizes without advancing argument; some abrupt shifts between points	Disorganized or fragmented; no discernible introduction-conclusion; cases scattered without context; exceeds word limit significantly or far too brief
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Precisely cites 2-3 landmark cases with specific contributions: MC Mehta (Oleum gas leak—absolute liability doctrine), TN Godavarman (continuing mandamus for forest protection), Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (remediation costs); case facts briefly stated to show relevance	Names cases correctly but lacks specificity on what each established; or includes minor/irrelevant cases; generic reference to 'various PILs' without naming	Incorrect case names or mismatched principles; cites international cases without Indian relevance; no case law at all; confuses environmental cases with other PILs
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Synthesizes to nuanced position: acknowledges constitutionalization as transformative but notes democratic deficit of judicial law-making, implementation gaps, or need for legislative codification; suggests way forward (specialized environmental courts, EAC strengthening)	Balanced but generic conclusion restating both sides without clear stance; or one-sided conclusion without justification; no forward-looking element	Missing or abrupt conclusion; purely descriptive ending; contradicts body without explanation; introduces entirely new arguments in conclusion

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 →