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

Q14

Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world's most powerful judiciary ? (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत में जनहित याचिकाओं के बढ़ने के कारण स्पष्ट कीजिए। इसके परिणामस्वरूप, क्या भारत का उच्चतम न्यायालय दुनिया की सबसे शक्तिशाली न्यायपालिका के रूप में उभरा है ? (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 causal reasoning for PIL growth and reasoned assessment of Supreme Court power. Structure: brief introduction defining PIL → body part 1 (historical, social, legal reasons for growth) → body part 2 (balanced evaluation of SC power with comparative/global context) → conclusion synthesizing both parts with nuanced judgment on 'most powerful' claim.

Key points expected

Judicial innovation post-Emergency (S.P. Gupta, 1981; S.C. Advocates-on-Record, 1993) and relaxation of locus standi
Executive/legislative failure in protecting socio-economic rights and environmental governance (Articles 21, 32 expansion)
Social activism, media expansion, and civil society mobilization enabling access to justice for marginalized
Comparative assessment: contrast with US (political question doctrine), UK (parliamentary sovereignty), or European courts
Critical evaluation of 'most powerful'—consider judicial overreach critique, PIL dilution, implementation gaps, and structural constraints
Balanced conclusion acknowledging transformative potential versus institutional limits of PIL

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly distinguishes two distinct tasks: causal explanation for PIL growth AND evaluative assessment of SC power claim; maintains analytical separation while showing interconnection	Addresses both parts but conflates explanation with evaluation; treats 'most powerful' as descriptive rather than requiring comparative judgment	Misses one part entirely or misunderstands 'explain' as mere description; treats question as single-theme without recognizing dual demand
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately identifies 3-4 distinct causal factors (legal, political, social) with precise constitutional provisions; nuanced power assessment acknowledging global comparisons and institutional constraints	Covers basic reasons (locus standi, Article 32) and makes general claim about SC power without comparative depth or critical balance	Factual errors on PIL origins (confusing with US concept), vague assertions about SC power, or ignores constitutional framework entirely
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear bipartite structure with explicit signposting; smooth transition from PIL causes to power evaluation; maintains 250-word discipline with proportional allocation	Recognizable structure but weak transitions; disproportionate coverage (e.g., 80% on PIL history, rushed conclusion on power)	Disorganized or single-paragraph response; no logical progression; exceeds word limit significantly or severely underwrites
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific citations: S.P. Gupta (1981), M.C. Mehta (environmental PILs), Vishaka (1997), or recent judgments; comparative reference to Marbury v. Madison or European Court limitations	Generic mention of 'landmark cases' without names, or only one example; no comparative dimension	No case-law or examples; or incorrect case names (e.g., confusing Kesavananda with PIL); purely theoretical response
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes both parts with qualified judgment: acknowledges PIL's democratic deepening while recognizing 'most powerful' as context-dependent; notes contemporary challenges (frivolous PILs, judicial restraint)	Simple affirmative/negative on 'most powerful' without qualification; or purely summative conclusion without analytical integration	No conclusion; or abrupt ending; or unsupported extreme claim (unqualified 'yes, most powerful globally')

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 →