General Studies 2025 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Discuss the 'corrupt practices' for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute 'undue influence' and consequently a corrupt practice. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

जन प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 के उद्देश्य से 'भ्रष्ट आचरण' की विवेचना कीजिए। विश्लेषण कीजिए कि क्या विधायकों एवं/अथवा उनके सहयोगियों की आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों के विपरीत अनुपात में संपत्ति में वृद्धि 'असम्यक असर' सृजित करता है और परिणामतः भ्रष्ट आचरण है। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 General Studies questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' requires a balanced exposition of corrupt practices under Section 123 of RPA 1951 followed by analytical examination of whether disproportionate assets constitute 'undue influence'. Structure: brief definition of corrupt practices → enumeration of key practices → analysis of disproportionate assets as undue influence → conclusion on judicial position.

Key points expected

  • Definition and scope of 'corrupt practices' under Section 123 of RPA 1951 including bribery, undue influence, personation, false statements, etc.
  • Distinction between 'undue influence' (Section 123(2)) and 'corrupt practice' – former being a subset of the latter
  • Analysis of whether disproportionate assets per se constitute undue influence under RPA 1951
  • Reference to Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration (1965) and subsequent judicial interpretation on undue influence
  • Distinction between RPA 1951 provisions and Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 regarding disproportionate assets
  • Conclusion on need for legislative clarity or judicial expansion on asset disclosure as electoral malpractice

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%2Correctly identifies 'discuss' requires both exposition of corrupt practices and analytical examination of disproportionate assets; does not conflate RPA 1951 with PCA 1988; addresses both parts of the question equally.Covers corrupt practices adequately but treats disproportionate assets superficially or conflates it with post-election disqualification under PCA 1988; uneven weightage to question parts.Misinterprets directive as mere listing; ignores analytical component on disproportionate assets; or completely misses that undue influence is a specific corrupt practice under Section 123(2).
Content depth & accuracy20%2Accurately cites Section 123 provisions; correctly distinguishes that disproportionate assets alone do not constitute undue influence under RPA 1951 unless nexus to electoral process shown; mentions Section 123(4) on false statements regarding candidature.Lists corrupt practices correctly but provides incomplete or partially inaccurate analysis on disproportionate assets; may suggest without qualification that asset increase automatically constitutes undue influence.Factual errors on Section 123 provisions; claims disproportionate assets per se disqualify under RPA 1951; confuses electoral offence with criminal offence under PCA 1988.
Structure & flow20%2Logical progression: definition → enumeration of corrupt practices → focused analysis of undue influence → application to disproportionate assets → conclusion; maintains coherence within 150-word constraint; clear paragraph breaks.Adequate structure but either front-loaded with definitions leaving little space for analysis, or disproportionate assets discussed without clear linkage to undue influence; minor flow issues.Disorganised or fragmented; no clear separation between descriptive and analytical components; abrupt ending without conclusion; exceeds word limit significantly or falls substantially short.
Examples / case-law / data20%2Cites Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration (1965) on undue influence definition; references EC guidelines on asset disclosure; mentions Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) on candidate disclosure obligations.Mentions asset disclosure rules without specific case law; or cites generic anti-corruption cases without RPA 1951 relevance; no specific judicial precedent on undue influence.No case law or examples; or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., 2G scam, coalgate) without connecting to RPA 1951 framework; factual errors in cited judgments.
Conclusion & analytical edge20%2Concludes that disproportionate assets do not ipso facto constitute undue influence under RPA 1951 unless direct electoral nexus proven; suggests need for legislative amendment to include non-disclosure of assets as corrupt practice; or notes judicial activism in expanding disclosure requirements.Balanced but non-committal conclusion; or asserts without reasoning that asset increase should/should not be corrupt practice; limited forward-looking element.No conclusion; or contradictory conclusion; mere summary of points without analytical synthesis; or asserts definitive legal position contrary to established jurisprudence.

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 2025 GS Paper II