General Studies 2023 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Compare and contrast

Q4

Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

संसदीय संप्रभुता के प्रति ब्रिटिश एवं भारतीय दृष्टिकोणों की तुलना करें और अंतर बताएं। (150 शब्दों में उत्तर) 10

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

Directive word: Compare and contrast

This question asks you to compare and contrast. 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 'compare and contrast' requires identifying similarities between British and Indian parliamentary sovereignty while highlighting fundamental differences. Structure: brief introduction defining parliamentary sovereignty → body with parallel comparison (British absolute sovereignty vs Indian limited sovereignty) → conclusion synthesizing why the difference matters for constitutional governance.

Key points expected

British Parliament's sovereignty is absolute, unlimited, and can make/unmake any law; no body can override it (Dicey's classic formulation)
Indian Parliament's sovereignty is limited by written Constitution, judicial review, and federal structure; Article 368 amending power is subject to Basic Structure doctrine
Comparison: both have parliamentary supremacy in law-making within their respective constitutional frameworks
Contrast: British lacks judicial review of parliamentary laws; Indian judiciary can strike down laws violating constitutional provisions (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973)
British unwritten constitution allows parliamentary self-regulation; Indian written constitution with entrenched provisions requires special majority for amendments
Practical implication: British Parliament cannot bind successors; Indian Parliament operates within permanent constitutional constraints

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Clearly distinguishes between 'compare' (similarities: both supreme within domains) and 'contrast' (differences: absolute vs limited sovereignty); does not merely describe one system then the other	Addresses both systems but treats them sequentially rather than in parallel comparison; misses explicit 'compare and contrast' framing	Describes only one system or conflates both without clear comparative framework; ignores directive entirely
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately captures Dicey's three meanings of British sovereignty; correctly identifies Article 368, Basic Structure doctrine, and specific constitutional limitations on Indian Parliament	Generally correct on both systems but vague on specifics; mentions judicial review without citing Kesavananda or conflates parliamentary sovereignty with legislative supremacy	Major factual errors (e.g., claiming Indian Parliament is absolutely sovereign, or that British Parliament faces judicial review); confuses parliamentary sovereignty with popular sovereignty
Structure & flow	20%	2	Parallel structure with clear signposting (similarities first, then differences); maintains tight 150-word discipline with no repetition; logical progression from definition to comparison to implications	Readable structure but either too descriptive or imbalanced weightage; some repetition or minor organizational lapses	Disorganized, no clear separation of British and Indian systems; exceeds word limit significantly or leaves one system underdeveloped
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Cites Kesavananda Bharati (1973) for Basic Structure doctrine limiting Indian parliamentary amendment power; references specific British constitutional conventions or recent Brexit-related sovereignty debates	Mentions judicial review or Basic Structure without specific case citation; generic reference to 'court judgments' without naming	No case law, examples, or constitutional articles cited; entirely theoretical treatment
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Synthesizes that Indian model represents 'constitutional sovereignty' rather than parliamentary sovereignty; connects to contemporary relevance (e.g., Article 370 abrogation debates, judicial independence concerns)	Brief summary of differences without analytical depth; restates points already made without synthesis	No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body content or introduces new unsupported claims

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 →