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

Q12

Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

प्रासंगिक संवैधानिक प्रावधानों और निर्णय विधियों की मदद से लैंगिक न्याय के संवैधानिक परिप्रेक्ष्य की व्याख्या कीजिए। (250 शब्दों में उत्तर) 15

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

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' requires a clear exposition of how the Constitution addresses gender justice through its provisions and judicial interpretation. Structure: Introduction defining constitutional perspective on gender justice → Body covering Preamble, Fundamental Rights (Articles 14-15), DPSP (Article 39), and transformative constitutionalism through key judgments → Conclusion on remaining gaps and way forward.

Key points expected

  • Preamble's 'equality of status and opportunity' and 'fraternity' as foundational gender justice principles
  • Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3), 16 and their interplay—protective discrimination vs. formal equality
  • Article 39(a), (d), (e) and 42 as DPSP mandate for gender justice
  • Landmark judgments: Vishaka (1997), Joseph Shine (2018), Sabarimala (2018), Navtej Singh Johar (2018) on constitutional morality
  • Recent progressive rulings: Triple Talaq, Maratha reservation (indirectly), and decriminalization of adultery
  • Critical mention of Article 243D/243T for political empowerment and pending 33% Women's Reservation

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%3Demonstrates precise grasp that 'explain' requires exposition of constitutional philosophy (transformative vs. conservative) alongside provisions, not mere listing; distinguishes between formal and substantive equality perspectivesUnderstands 'explain' as description of articles and cases without linking to broader constitutional vision; conflates directive with 'enumerate'Misreads directive as 'discuss' or 'critically examine' leading to unfocused critique without foundational exposition; or treats as 'list' with fragmented points
Content depth & accuracy20%3Accurately cites specific articles with clauses (15(3), 15(4), 39(a), 243D) and constitutional amendments (73rd, 74th); correctly interprets 'protective discrimination' jurisprudence and avoids conflating gender justice with women-centric provisions aloneMentions Articles 14-16 and 39 generally with minor inaccuracies; includes DPSP but misses Article 42/Maternity Provision; conflates gender justice narrowly with women's rights ignoring LGBTQ+ dimensions in recent jurisprudenceSignificant errors: cites wrong articles (e.g., Article 21 for gender equality without context), confuses FR with DPSP, or includes irrelevant provisions like Article 370; factual errors in case law years or benches
Structure & flow20%3Logical progression: constitutional philosophy → textual provisions (FR→DPSP→Amendments) → judicial interpretation → contemporary evolution; smooth transitions between constitutional text and judicial innovation; thematic grouping (equality, protection, empowerment)Basic structure present but mechanical: chronological listing of articles followed by cases without thematic linkage; or FR-DPSP separation without integration; adequate but uninspired paragraphingDisorganized: random jumping between provisions and cases; no clear introduction or conclusion; bullet points without integration; exceeds word limit significantly or falls substantially short; repetitive content
Examples / case-law / data20%3Strategic selection: Vishaka (workplace harassment), Joseph Shine (adultery decriminalization), Sabarimala (temple entry—constitutional morality), Navtej Singh Johar (Section 377—gender justice expanded); mentions specific constitutional benches and ratio decidendi; includes recent 2022-2023 judgments if relevantMentions 3-4 standard cases (Vishaka, Triple Talaq, maybe Sabarimala) with basic facts but weak legal reasoning linkage; misses transformative 2018 trilogy; no bench strength or year specificityGeneric references ('Supreme Court in various judgments'); incorrect case names or mismatched facts (e.g., attributing Vishaka guidelines to another case); outdated pre-2010 cases only; no case law at all or irrelevant international examples
Conclusion & analytical edge20%3Synthesizes constitutional perspective as 'transformative constitutionalism' overcoming societal inertia; identifies gap between constitutional promise and lived reality (NCRB data, labor force participation); suggests specific constitutional/political measures (UCC debate, Women's Reservation implementation, intersectional approach)Standard conclusion on 'need for implementation' or 'society must change'; mentions pending Women's Reservation Bill without context; no data or specific contemporary challenge; generic optimism without critiqueNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive final paragraph repeating earlier points; irrelevant digression into government schemes (Beti Bachao) ignoring constitutional lens; pessimistic or normative statement without analytical grounding

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 2023 GS Paper II