General Studies 2023 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Comment

Q1

"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy." Comment. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

"संवैधानिक रूप से न्यायिक स्वतंत्रता की गारंटी लोकतंत्र की एक पूर्व शर्त है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (150 शब्दों में उत्तर) 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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, opinion-based analysis that goes beyond mere description to critically assess the relationship between judicial independence and democracy. Structure as: brief introduction affirming the premise → body examining constitutional safeguards (Articles 124, 217, 50) and their democratic function → nuanced conclusion acknowledging limitations or contemporary challenges.

Key points expected

Article 50 (separation of judiciary from executive) and Articles 124, 217 (security of tenure, removal process) as constitutional bedrock
Judicial independence as check on majoritarian excesses protecting minority rights and rule of law
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and subsequent basic structure doctrine reinforcing judicial review as democratic safeguard
Counter-argument: judicial independence without accountability can lead to judicial overreach (examples: NJAC verdict, PIL misuse)
Contemporary challenges: executive interference in appointments, post-retirement appointments, judicial delays undermining democratic access to justice

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Recognizes 'comment' requires balanced, critical assessment rather than one-sided advocacy; addresses both why judicial independence enables democracy AND potential tensions between the two	Treats the statement as absolute truth to be defended; offers descriptive explanation without critical engagement or acknowledgment of complexity	Misreads directive as 'explain' or 'describe'; provides only constitutional provisions without assessing their democratic significance
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Precisely cites Articles 50, 124, 217, 235; explains institutional mechanisms (Collegium, removal process) AND their democratic rationale; distinguishes formal from substantive independence	Mentions constitutional provisions generally without specific articles; conflates independence with judicial review; superficial treatment of democratic linkage	Factual errors (wrong articles, conflating High Court/Supreme Court provisions); vague assertions without constitutional grounding
Structure & flow	20%	2	Compact 150-word structure with clear thesis; logical progression from constitutional text → democratic function → contemporary relevance; seamless transitions despite word constraint	Identifiable introduction and conclusion but body lacks clear thematic organization; some repetition or digression within tight word limit	Disorganized or missing components; abrupt shifts between points; exceeds or falls significantly short of word limit
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Deploys 2-3 precise examples: Kesavananda Bharati (judicial review as basic structure), NJAC case (tension between independence and accountability), or recent CJI appointment controversies; uses examples analytically not ornamentally	Mentions one landmark case generically (e.g., 'Kesavananda case' without specifying significance) or lists examples without connecting to argument	No case law or examples; irrelevant examples (foreign jurisdictions without comparative purpose); incorrect case citations
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Synthesizes into nuanced position: independence is necessary but not sufficient condition; flags contemporary threats (delay, opacity) or suggests balance with accountability; demonstrates original insight within constraints	Restates premise without development; generic conclusion about 'strengthening judiciary'; no acknowledgment of tensions or contemporary relevance	Missing conclusion; contradictory final position; purely descriptive ending without analytical closure

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 →