General Studies 2023 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Illustrate

Q11

"The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society." Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

"भारत का संविधान अत्यधिक गतिशीलता की क्षमताओं के साथ एक जीवंत यंत्र है। यह प्रगतिशील समाज के लिये बनाया गया एक संविधान है।" जीने के अधिकार तथा व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता के अधिकार में हो रहे निरंतर विस्तार के विशेष संदर्भ में उदाहरण सहित व्याख्या कीजिए। (250 शब्दों में उत्तर) 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies questions

Directive word: Illustrate

This question asks you to illustrate. 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 'illustrate' requires demonstrating how the Constitution functions as a living document through concrete examples of Article 21's expansion. Structure: brief introduction defining 'living constitution' → body mapping judicial evolution across dignity, livelihood, environment, health dimensions with case laws → conclusion on judicial activism vs. restraint balance.

Key points expected

Explanation of 'living constitution' concept: adaptability through interpretation without formal amendment
Expansion of Article 21 from mere animal existence (Gopalan) to meaningful life (Maneka Gandhi)
Specific dimensions: right to livelihood (Olga Tellis), clean environment (Subhash Kumar), health (Parmanand Katara), shelter (Chameli Singh), privacy (Puttaswamy)
Role of Supreme Court as constitutional interpreter in social transformation
Critical acknowledgment of limitations: implementation gaps, pendency, executive compliance issues

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Demonstrates precise grasp that 'illustrate' requires concrete exemplification of constitutional dynamism through Article 21 jurisprudence, not mere description of provisions	Understands the living constitution concept but treats it generically without linking specifically to judicial interpretation methodology	Misinterprets directive as 'describe' or 'explain' Article 21; provides static constitutional provisions without showing dynamism
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately traces doctrinal shifts: A.K. Gopalan (1950) → Maneka Gandhi (1978) → Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) → expanding substantive due process; covers multiple rights dimensions with doctrinal precision	Mentions Maneka Gandhi and some expansion but lacks chronological coherence or conflates distinct doctrinal developments	Factual errors in case law (wrong benches, years, holdings); omits foundational cases; confuses Article 21 with other articles
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: living constitution thesis → Article 21 as vehicle → thematic mapping of rights expansion (dignity/survival/quality of life) → critical reflection; smooth transitions between judicial phases	Basic intro-body-conclusion but body reads as disconnected case listing without thematic or chronological organization	Disorganized; jumps between cases randomly; no discernible argument structure; abrupt or missing conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Minimum 5-6 precisely cited cases across diverse dimensions: Olga Tellis (livelihood), Subhash Kumar (environment), Parmanand Katara (medical aid), Chameli Singh (shelter), Puttaswamy (privacy), plus recent developments like orders during COVID-19	2-3 commonly known cases (Maneka Gandhi, Olga Tellis) with generic descriptions; missing specificity of what each case established	Vague references ('some court case') or incorrect case names; no case laws at all; only mentions constitutional text without judicial interpretation
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Balances celebration of judicial creativity with critical insight: PIL fatigue, implementation deficit, Article 21's potential overreach into policy domain, or comparative note on formal amendment vs. judicial adaptation	Standard celebratory conclusion on judicial activism without critical nuance; or abrupt summary without forward-looking insight	No conclusion; or purely descriptive ending; or unrelated conclusion on constitutional amendment generally

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 →