General Studies 2022 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Discuss

Q11

Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void ? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision ? Refer to the case laws. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 के अंतर्गत संसद अथवा राज्य विधानिका के सदस्यों के चुनाव से उभरे विवादों के निर्णय की प्रक्रिया का विवेचन कीजिए। किन आधारों पर किसी निर्वाचित घोषित प्रत्याशी के निर्वाचन को शून्य घोषित किया जा सकता है ? इस निर्णय के विरुद्ध पीड़ित पक्ष को कौन-सा उपचार उपलब्ध है ? वाद विधियों का संदर्भ दीजिए। (250 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 comprehensive examination of the dispute resolution mechanism under RPA 1951, covering procedures, grounds for voiding elections, and appellate remedies with relevant case laws. Structure as: brief introduction on RPA 1951's constitutional basis → body addressing the three components (procedure, grounds, remedy) with case laws → conclusion on electoral integrity.

Key points expected

Election petition jurisdiction: High Court for Parliament/State Legislature elections under Section 80-81, time limit of 45 days from election date
Procedure: Petition format, security deposit, court fees, trial by single judge, powers of civil court under CPC including discovery and inspection
Grounds for void election: Sections 100-101 - corrupt practices, improper acceptance of nomination, substantial non-compliance with RPA, candidate disqualified under Constitution/Act
Remedy: Appeal to Supreme Court under Section 116A within 30 days, finality of SC decision, no interference under Article 226 or 32
Landmark cases: Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh (1965) on corrupt practices, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) on scope of election petitions, Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952) on jurisdiction

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Covers all three sub-questions (procedure, grounds, remedy) in balanced proportion; recognizes 'discuss' requires analytical exposition rather than mere listing; integrates constitutional provisions (Articles 329, 323B) with statutory framework	Addresses all three components but treats them in isolation; some imbalance in coverage; limited linkage between procedural aspects and substantive grounds	Misses one or more sub-questions entirely; confuses RPA 1951 with RPA 1950; treats directive as 'enumerate' or 'list' without analytical depth
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Precise statutory citations (Sections 80, 100, 116A); accurate distinction between 'void' and 'voidable' elections; correct time limits and jurisdictional hierarchy; mentions 1966 amendment introducing corrupt practices definition	Generally correct statutory framework but vague on specific sections; conflates grounds under Section 100 with Section 101; minor errors in appeal timeline	Fundamental errors: confuses Election Commission's role with High Court jurisdiction; incorrect grounds (mentions booth capturing without statutory basis); wrong appellate forum
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear tripartite structure matching question demands; logical progression from procedure → grounds → remedy; effective use of subheadings; smooth transitions between statutory provisions and judicial interpretation	Recognizable structure but uneven development; some overlap between procedure and grounds sections; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesis	Disorganized or chronological rather than thematic; no paragraph breaks; conclusion absent or consists of generic statement on democracy
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Minimum 3 relevant cases with accurate facts and ratio: Kultar Singh (corrupt practice proof standard), Mohinder Singh Gill (EC's limited role), Ponnuswami (jurisdiction bar); recent cases like Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) on corrupt practice of 'appeal to vote on religious grounds'	2 cases with partially correct facts; mentions landmark cases but misstates holding; no post-2000 cases; conflates RPA cases with constitutional cases	No case laws or entirely fabricated cases; cites cases irrelevant to RPA 1951 (e.g., Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi's Election case without contextual relevance); confuses civil appeal cases with election petitions
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Critical observation on tension between speedy resolution (45 days) and fair trial; mention of 255th Law Commission recommendations on electoral reforms; or analysis of low success rate of election petitions (~5%) indicating procedural barriers	Balanced summary of three components; generic statement on need for electoral purity; no critical insight or contemporary relevance	No conclusion; or abrupt ending; or irrelevant digression into EVM/VVPAT controversies; populist statement without analytical foundation

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 →