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

Q7

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 remains only a legal document without intense sensitisation of government functionaries and citizens regarding disability. Comment. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

दिव्यांगता के संदर्भ में सरकारी पदाधिकारियों और नागरिकों की गहन संवेदनशीलता के बिना दिव्यांगजन अधिकार अधिनियम, 2016 केवल विधिक दस्तावेज बनकर रह जाता है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 General Studies questions

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' requires a balanced, opinionated analysis that goes beyond mere description to critically assess the gap between legal provisions and ground reality. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging RPWD Act 2016's expanded scope (21 disabilities), body analysing why sensitisation lags (attitudinal barriers, implementation gaps, lack of disability budgeting), and conclusion suggesting actionable remedies.

Key points expected

Recognition that RPWD Act 2016 replaced 1995 Act with expanded disability categories (21 vs 7) and stronger rights framework
Analysis of attitudinal barriers: pity-charity model persists vs rights-based model; stigma in education, employment, marriage
Implementation gaps: low disability budgeting (<2% of schemes), inaccessible public infrastructure, inadequate State Commissioners
Role of sensitisation: disability etiquette training for bureaucrats, sign language in courts, inclusive education for teachers
Citizen-level barriers: lack of awareness about reasonable accommodation, accessibility features, and grievance redressal
Way forward: mandatory disability audits, community-based rehabilitation, leveraging District Disability Rehabilitation Centres

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Recognises 'comment' demands critical assessment, not mere description; balances Act's progressive provisions with ground-level failures; avoids pure criticism or pure praise	Partially understands directive—either describes Act provisions without critique, or criticises without acknowledging legal advances; one-sided analysis	Misinterprets as 'describe' or 'explain'; purely factual narration of Act sections; no evaluative stance on sensitisation gap
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately cites 21 disability categories, 5% reservation, accessibility mandates; distinguishes between structural, attitudinal, and institutional barriers to sensitisation	Mentions RPWD Act 2016 basics but confuses with 1995 Act or UNCRPD; generic barriers listed without specificity to disability context	Factual errors (e.g., wrong year, wrong number of disabilities); conflates with Mental Healthcare Act 2017; irrelevant content on other social legislations
Structure & flow	20%	2	Tight 150-word discipline: crisp intro (20 words), analytical body (100 words), forward-looking conclusion (30 words); logical progression from law-to-reality-to-remedy	Adequate structure but uneven weightage—either overlong introduction or abrupt ending; some paragraphing but weak transitions between points	Disorganised or bullet-point dump; no discernible argument flow; exceeds word limit significantly or severely underwrites; missing conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Specific Indian examples: inaccessible railway stations despite Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan; low employment in government posts (1% vs 4% mandate); NITI Aayog index on disability inclusion; District Disability Rehabilitation Centres	Generic references like 'government offices are inaccessible' or 'disabled face discrimination'; no named schemes, data, or case illustrations	No examples at all; irrelevant international comparisons without Indian context; fabricated statistics or schemes
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Sharp concluding insight: law is necessary but insufficient condition; calls for behavioural change through participatory models (nothing about us without us); specific actionable suggestion like disability budgeting in every department	Routine conclusion summarising points already made; generic 'government should do more' without specificity; no fresh analytical insight	Missing conclusion; abrupt ending; purely aspirational statement ('India will become inclusive'); contradicts own argument

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 →