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

Q15

Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

आदर्श आचार-संहिता के उद्भव के आलोक में, भारत के निर्वाचन आयोग की भूमिका का विवेचन 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 the ECI's role through the historical evolution of the MCC, presenting multiple facets rather than a one-sided argument. Structure: brief introduction defining MCC and ECI's constitutional mandate → chronological tracing of MCC evolution (1960s origins to 1991 formalization to 2014-2024 digital expansions) → analysis of how each phase expanded ECI's enforcement powers → critical assessment of current challenges → forward-looking conclusion.

Key points expected

Origin of MCC in 1960 Kerala assembly elections and its gradual evolution from voluntary code to statutory backing through RPA amendments and Supreme Court interventions
ECI's constitutional authority under Article 324 and how MCC evolution transformed its role from passive referee to active regulator
Key phases: 1979 first MCC document, 1991 comprehensive revision, post-2010 digital/social media guidelines, 2024 AI-generated content regulations
Landmark cases: S. Subramaniam Balaji vs Tamil Nadu (2013) on freebies, Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (2017) on hate speech, ECI's powers vis-à-vis Article 19
Contemporary challenges: MCC's non-statutory status limiting enforceability, ECI's inability to disqualify candidates, delays in disposal of complaints during crucial polling phases
Critical assessment of ECI's expanded role including concerns about overreach, selective enforcement, and need for statutory backing to MCC

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Demonstrates clear grasp that 'discuss' requires presenting multiple dimensions of ECI's evolving role through MCC history—neither pure description nor argument, but balanced examination of how institutional powers expanded through each phase	Partially understands 'discuss' but tends toward description of MCC provisions or one-sided praise of ECI without tracing evolution or presenting critical balance	Misreads directive as 'describe' (mere listing of MCC rules) or 'evaluate' (premature judgment without historical context); fails to connect evolution to role transformation
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately traces MCC evolution with precise milestones (1960 Kerala, 1979 document, 1991 revision, 2010 social media, 2019 VVPAT, 2024 AI guidelines); correctly identifies Article 324 scope and limitations; distinguishes between statutory and non-statutory provisions	Broadly correct timeline but missing specific milestones; conflates MCC with RPA provisions; vague on constitutional basis of ECI's powers; minor factual errors on evolution phases	Significant factual errors (e.g., claiming MCC is statutory, misdating origins, confusing ECI with State Election Commissions); superficial content lacking historical depth
Structure & flow	20%	3	Chronological or thematic progression that mirrors MCC evolution; clear paragraph transitions showing cause-effect between each phase and ECI's expanding role; balanced word distribution across 250 words	Acceptable structure but uneven progression—either front-loaded with history and rushed conclusion, or jumps between periods without clear logic; some paragraph coherence issues	Disorganized or fragmented; no clear evolution narrative; repetitive points; poor time management evident in abrupt/incomplete ending; violates word limit significantly
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific judicial interventions (Balaji 2013, Commachen 2017, Mohinder Singh Gill case on ECI powers); concrete MCC violations handled (2019 PM biopic controversy, 2024 deepfake incidents); recent ECI orders showing evolved enforcement	Generic references to 'Supreme Court upheld ECI powers' without case names; mentions common MCC violations (hate speech, money power) without specific instances; missing recent digital-age examples	No case law or specific examples; relies on hypothetical scenarios; outdated or invented examples; confuses Lok Sabha and state election incidents
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes evolution into forward-looking assessment: need for statutory MCC, ECI's dilemma between credibility and overreach, technological challenges ahead; nuanced position on ECI's transformed but contested role	Standard conclusion summarizing points made; generic call for 'strengthening ECI' without specificity; lacks critical reflection on whether expanded powers are always desirable	No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive closing; uncritical celebration of ECI; or cynical dismissal without constructive element; fails to address 'in the light of evolution' requirement

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 →