General Studies 2025 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Examine

Q12

Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power on the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and substantive limitations on the amending power of the Parliament to change the Constitution. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारतीय संविधान ने कुछ प्रक्रियात्मक अवरोधों के साथ सामान्य विधायी संस्थाओं को संविधान संशोधन की शक्ति प्रदान की है। इस कथन को दृष्टिगत कर संसद के संविधान संशोधन की शक्ति पर प्रक्रियात्मक एवं सारभूत परिसीमाओं का परीक्षण कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. 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 'examine' requires a critical investigation of both procedural and substantive limitations on Parliament's amending power under Article 368. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging the statement's premise → body with two clear sections (procedural hurdles like special majority and ratification; substantive limitations from Kesavananda onwards) → conclusion assessing the balance between flexibility and rigidity.

Key points expected

Article 368 procedure: special majority (majority of total membership + two-thirds of present and voting) and state ratification for federal provisions
Substantive limitations: Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati 1973) prohibiting amendment of fundamental features like judicial review, federalism, secularism
Evolution through key cases: Golak Nath (1967), Kesavananda (1973), Minerva Mills (1980), NJAC case (2015) showing judicial assertiveness
Specific 'unamendable' elements: judicial independence, rule of law, separation of powers, free and fair elections
Parliament's response: 42nd Amendment attempt to override judicial review and 44th Amendment partial rollback
Contemporary relevance: recent debates on constitutional amendments and judicial review in cases like Electoral Bonds (2024)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly distinguishes between procedural limitations (Article 368 mechanics) and substantive limitations (Basic Structure Doctrine), treating 'examine' as critical investigation rather than mere description; addresses the tension in the statement between 'ordinary legislative institutions' and actual constraints	Covers both procedural and substantive aspects but treats them descriptively without critical engagement; may conflate or under-emphasize one category	Misinterprets 'examine' as simple description; focuses only on Article 368 procedure ignoring Basic Structure; or discusses amending power without addressing limitations
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Precise articulation of special majority requirements, ratification conditions for federal provisions; accurate explanation of Basic Structure evolution with correct case chronology and ratio; mentions specific unamendable features	Generally accurate on Article 368 and Basic Structure but lacks precision on majority calculations, ratification triggers, or conflates Golak Nath and Kesavananda holdings; generic mention of 'judicial review' without specificity	Factual errors: confuses simple and special majority, misstates Kesavananda as prohibiting all amendments, omits substantive limitations entirely, or incorrectly claims Parliament can amend any provision
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear two-part structure mirroring the question (procedural → substantive); logical progression from Article 368 text to judicial interpretation; effective use of paragraphing or subheadings within 250-word constraint; smooth transitions between historical and contemporary dimensions	Identifiable structure but uneven weightage (over-detailed procedure, rushed substantive limitations); or chronological rather than thematic organization causing repetition; adequate but not crisp flow	Disorganized or stream-of-consciousness writing; no clear separation between procedural and substantive aspects; abrupt jumps between topics; missing introduction or conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Minimum 3-4 specific cases with correct years and holdings: Kesavananda (1973), Minerva Mills (1980), I.R. Coelho (2007), NJAC (2015); references 42nd/44th Amendments as legislative responses; possibly cites Electoral Bonds or recent constitutional developments	Mentions Kesavananda and Golak Nath but with vague or incorrect details; generic reference to 'Supreme Court judgments' without naming; includes 42nd Amendment but without explaining its attempted override of Basic Structure	No case law cited; or only names without context ('in Kesavananda case'); completely omits judicial decisions that created substantive limitations; no constitutional amendment examples
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes procedural-substantive interplay: procedural hurdles alone insufficient, judicial review provides substantive check; evaluates whether limitations preserve constitutional identity or create judicial supremacy; forward-looking observation on current tensions (e.g., Article 370 abrogation scrutiny, CAA challenges)	Balanced summary of both limitations without deeper synthesis; standard observation on 'living document' or 'balance of power' without specific evaluation; no contemporary application	Missing conclusion; or mere restatement of points; no analytical evaluation of whether limitations are excessive or insufficient; abrupt ending without addressing the 'examine' directive's evaluative demand

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 →