General Studies 2024 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Explain

Q12

Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निजता का अधिकार, प्राण तथा दैहिक स्वतंत्रता के आंतरिक भाग के रूप में, संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 के अंतर्गत स्वाभाविक रूप से संरक्षित है। व्याख्या कीजिये। इस संदर्भ में एक गर्भस्थ शिशु के पितृत्व को सिद्ध करने के लिए डी.एन.ए. परीक्षण से सम्बन्धित विधि की चर्चा कीजिये। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में लिखिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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 establishing the constitutional foundation of privacy under Article 21, followed by 'discuss' which demands a balanced examination of DNA testing laws for prenatal paternity determination. Structure as: Introduction linking privacy to Article 21 → Body explaining constitutional evolution → Discussion of DNA testing legal framework with judicial precedents → Balanced conclusion on rights reconciliation.

Key points expected

Explanation of how right to privacy evolved from Article 21 through Puttaswamy (2017) as intrinsic to life and personal liberty
Reference to Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act and its presumption of legitimacy creating conflict with DNA testing
Discussion of prenatal DNA testing legal position under PCPNDT Act prohibitions and MTP Act considerations
Analysis of Supreme Court precedents like Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (2011) and Dipanwita Roy (2005) on DNA testing limits
Balancing test between child's right to know paternity, mother's privacy, and societal interest in legitimacy
Critical view on need for specific legislation governing prenatal genetic testing for paternity

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly distinguishes between 'explain' (constitutional basis of privacy) and 'discuss' (examination of DNA testing law), addressing both parts proportionally with explicit linkage between privacy principles and paternity testing constraints	Addresses both parts but treats them sequentially without integrating privacy principles into DNA discussion, or overweights one part	Misses either the explanatory or discussive component, or conflates both into undifferentiated narrative without directive-specific treatment
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately cites Puttaswamy's nine-judge bench, correctly explains Section 112 IEA presumption, identifies PCPNDT Act's sex-selection prohibition extending to prenatal testing, and distinguishes between postnatal and prenatal DNA testing legal regimes	Mentions Article 21 and privacy but lacks specific statutory references or confuses PCPNDT with MTP Act provisions; general awareness without precise legal provisions	Fundamental errors like locating privacy in Article 19, misstating DNA testing as unregulated, or ignoring statutory constraints on prenatal testing entirely
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: constitutional foundation → statutory framework → judicial interpretation → contemporary challenges; smooth transitions between privacy doctrine and paternity testing with clear signposting	Covers all elements but with abrupt shifts between constitutional and statutory parts, or uses bullet points that fragment narrative flow without integrative links	Disorganised structure with constitutional and DNA content intermixed randomly, no clear paragraphing, or inverted sequence discussing testing before establishing privacy foundation
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Cites K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2011) on DNA testing discretion, Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2005) on legitimacy presumption, and optionally Kamti Devi (2001); references PCPNDT Act 1994 and MTP Act 1971 provisions	Mentions Puttaswamy and one DNA case generically without specific details, or lists statutes without explaining their relevance to prenatal testing specifically	No case law cited, or incorrect/invented citations; fails to mention any statutory framework governing prenatal testing
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Offers nuanced synthesis reconciling competing rights (unborn child's genetic identity vs. mother's bodily autonomy vs. marital privacy), suggests need for specific legislation on prenatal paternity testing, or critiques current judicial ad-hocism	Summarises both parts separately without integration, or gives generic conclusion on importance of privacy without addressing the specific tension in prenatal testing context	No conclusion, or abrupt ending; purely descriptive without any evaluative or forward-looking element on the legal lacuna

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 →