General Studies 2023 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Account for

Q13

Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

संघीय सरकारों द्वारा 1990 के दशक के मध्य से अनुच्छेद 356 के उपयोग की कम आवृत्ति के लिये जिम्मेदार विधिक एवं राजनीतिक कारकों का विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (250 शब्दों में उत्तर) 15

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

Directive word: Account for

This question asks you to account for. 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 'account for' requires explaining reasons/causes with evidence. Structure: brief introduction noting pre-1990s misuse → body with legal factors (S.R. Bommai judgment, Rameshwar Prasad case) and political factors (coalition era, rise of regional parties, Sarkaria Commission influence) → conclusion on federalism evolution.

Key points expected

S.R. Bommai judgment (1994) laying down strict guidelines for Article 356 invocation and judicial review
Political shift to coalition governments (1996-2014) making unilateral dismissal politically costly
Rise of regional parties and hung assemblies reducing Union's dominance over states
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) further restricting arbitrary use
Sarkaria Commission recommendations (1988) on federalism and procedural safeguards
Emergence of 'federal front' politics and Supreme Court's activism in policing constitutional boundaries

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly distinguishes between legal (judicial, constitutional) and political (electoral, party-system) factors; treats 'account for' as causal explanation with evidence, not mere description	Mentions both legal and political factors but conflates them or treats them as separate lists without showing interconnection; partial coverage of 'account for' demand	Misinterprets directive as 'describe Article 356' or lists factors without explaining causation; ignores either legal or political dimension entirely
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately cites Bommai guidelines (secularism, breakdown test), coalition compulsions (1996-2014 era), and post-2014 pattern; precise on constitutional provisions and political chronology	Basic coverage of Bommai and coalition politics but with minor errors in dates or case details; superficial treatment of federalism evolution	Major factual errors (wrong case names, pre-1990s examples as post-1990s); confuses Article 356 with Article 352 or 365; irrelevant content on President's Rule mechanics
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear bifurcation: legal factors (judgments, commissions) → political factors (coalition era, regionalism); smooth transitions showing how legal changes enabled political restraint; chronological or thematic coherence	Present but uneven structure; some mixing of legal-political factors; readable but lacks clear signposting or logical progression between paragraphs	Disorganized or bullet-point dump without paragraphs; no distinction between legal and political; abrupt jumps between unrelated points
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific citations: S.R. Bommai (1994) with 5-judge bench significance, Rameshwar Prasad (2006), Sarkaria Commission; quantitative contrast (e.g., Indira Gandhi's 50+ uses vs. post-1990s decline); state-specific instances like Bihar 2005 dissolution struck down	Mentions Bommai and coalition politics generally but without case specifics or data; generic references to 'judicial activism' without naming judgments	No case law or data; only generic statements like 'courts became strict'; examples from pre-1990s (e.g., 1975-77 Emergency) irrelevant to post-1990s question
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes legal-political interplay: judicial review created 'cost' for political misuse; notes contemporary tension (2014+ majority government); balanced view on whether federalism is truly cooperative or merely constrained	Standard conclusion on healthy federalism without critical nuance; or abrupt ending without tying factors together; no reflection on current relevance	No conclusion or purely summary ending; partisan stance praising one party; or irrelevant forward-looking suggestions not asked in question

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 →