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

Q12

Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

राज्यपाल द्वारा विधायी शक्तियों के प्रयोग की आवश्यक शर्तों का विवेचन कीजिए । विधायिका के समक्ष रखे बिना राज्यपाल द्वारा अध्यादेशों के पुनःप्रख्यापन की वैधता की विवेचना कीजिए । (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 balanced examination of both parts: essential conditions for Governor's legislative powers and the legality of re-promulgation. Structure as: brief constitutional context → Article 213 conditions (when legislature not in session, immediate action needed, President's assent for certain bills) → re-promulgation debate with judicial position → conclusion on reform needs.

Key points expected

  • Article 213: Governor can promulgate ordinances only when state legislature is not in session and circumstances exist rendering immediate action necessary
  • Ordinance requires subsequent approval by legislature within 6 weeks of reassembly; ceases to operate if disapproved earlier
  • Re-promulgation without placing before legislature: Supreme Court in DC Wadhwa (1987) held it unconstitutional as subversion of legislative process
  • Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) reinforced that re-promulgation is fraud on Constitution; ordinance-making cannot substitute legislative functioning
  • Seven-judge bench in Krishna Kumar Singh also examined 'satisfaction' of Governor as non-justiciable but re-promulgation pattern is judicially reviewable
  • Need for safeguards: 44th Constitutional Amendment Bill (1978) proposed time limits on re-promulgation but lapsed

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%3Covers both parts equally—essential conditions (Article 213 requirements) AND legality of re-promulgation (judicial position); recognizes 'discuss' demands examination of multiple viewpoints, not mere descriptionAddresses both parts but treats them sequentially without integration; may overemphasize one part or provide only descriptive coverage of conditionsMisses one part entirely or conflates both; treats question as purely descriptive without engaging with constitutional tensions or judicial scrutiny
Content depth & accuracy20%3Precise citation of Article 213; accurate distinction between President's (Article 123) and Governor's ordinance powers; correct legal position on re-promulgation post-Wadhwa and Krishna Kumar Singh; mentions 6-week limit and ceasing effectCorrect constitutional provisions but vague on judicial evolution; may confuse President and Governor powers or misstate re-promulgation as merely 'undesirable' rather than unconstitutionalFactual errors: states Governor can promulgate when legislature is in session, or claims re-promulgation is legally valid; omits Article 213 entirely or cites wrong article
Structure & flow20%3Clear tripartite structure: constitutional framework → essential conditions → re-promulgation legality with judicial trajectory; smooth transitions between parts; maintains 250-word discipline with proportional allocationRecognizable structure but uneven weightage (e.g., excessive detail on conditions, cursory treatment of re-promulgation); some paragraph breaks but logical connections weakDisorganized or bullet-point dump without essay format; no clear separation between the two 'discuss' components; rambles or ends abruptly without conclusion
Examples / case-law / data20%3Cites DC Wadhwa (1987) on Bihar's 256 re-promulgated ordinances and Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) seven-judge bench; references specific state instances (Bihar pattern) or 44th Amendment Bill; uses case law to build argumentMentions Supreme Court held re-promulgation invalid but without case names; vague reference to 'judicial pronouncements' without specificity; no concrete state examplesNo case law at all; generic statements like 'courts have criticized' without authority; invents case names or misattributes judgments (e.g., citing Kesavananda for ordinance powers)
Conclusion & analytical edge20%3Synthesizes judicial position into broader critique of ordinance raj; suggests reforms (legislative scrutiny, time limits, judicial review of repeated re-promulgation); connects to federalism and democratic accountability; forward-looking yet groundedBrief summary restating unconstitutionality of re-promulgation without fresh insight; generic call for 'judicial vigilance' or 'legislative care' without specific mechanismNo conclusion or abrupt ending; merely repeats that re-promulgation is bad; contradictory conclusion suggesting re-promulgation acceptable in emergencies; purely descriptive close without analysis

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 2022 GS Paper II