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

Q2

Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

न्यायालय पद्धति की तुलना में प्रशासनिक अधिकरणों की आवश्यकता पर टिप्पणी कीजिए। 2021 में अधिकरणों के बुद्धिपरक पुनर्गठन द्वारा किए गए नूतन अधिकरण सुधारों के प्रभाव का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' requires a balanced, opinion-backed analysis rather than mere description. Structure as: brief intro on tribunal rationale → comparative need assessment (speed, expertise, cost vs. courts) → 2021 reforms' impact assessment (Tribunals Reforms Act, merging 9 tribunals, search-cum-selection committee changes) → nuanced conclusion on effectiveness.

Key points expected

Technical expertise and domain knowledge in specialized areas (tax, environment, armed forces) reducing burden on regular courts
Speedier justice delivery and cost-effectiveness compared to conventional court system's procedural delays
2021 Tribunals Reforms Act provisions: dissolution of 9 tribunals, transfer of functions to existing judicial bodies
Concerns regarding tribunal autonomy: changes in tenure, age criteria, and search-cum-selection committee composition affecting independence
Impact assessment: pendency reduction vs. institutional capacity strain, uniformity in adjudication vs. loss of specialized focus

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Clearly distinguishes between 'need assessment' (comparative advantages) and 'impact assessment' (2021 reforms evaluation); maintains analytical balance without drifting into pure description	Addresses both parts but treats them descriptively; conflates need analysis with reform description without clear evaluative stance	Misreads directive as pure description; focuses only on one part (either need or reforms) or provides generic commentary without question-specific focus
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Precise coverage: Art. 323-A/B constitutional basis, L. Chandra Kumar case, 2021 Act specifics (9 merged tribunals, Film Certification Appellate Tribunal etc.), balanced critique of independence concerns	Mentions tribunal advantages and 2021 reforms superficially; vague on specific tribunals merged or constitutional provisions; minor factual inaccuracies	Confuses tribunals with courts; incorrect reform details (e.g., citing 2017 Finance Act instead of 2021 Act); omits constitutional basis or independence debate
Structure & flow	20%	2	Tight 150-word architecture: 2-line intro → 60 words on need (expertise, speed, cost) → 60 words on 2021 reforms (mergers, autonomy concerns) → 2-line balanced conclusion; seamless transitions	Both parts present but uneven weightage; abrupt shifts between need and reforms; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesis	Disorganized mixing of points; no clear part-division; exceeds word limit or severely underutilizes it; missing conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Cites specific merged tribunals (e.g., Airport Authority Appellate Tribunal, Copyright Board); references L. Chandra Kumar (1997) or R. Gandhi (2010) on tribunal independence; mentions 3.5 lakh+ tribunal pendence context	Generic mention of 'some tribunals merged' without names; no case law; vague reference to 'backlog reduction' without data	No specific tribunal names; no constitutional/statutory references; examples irrelevant (mentioning NGT when not part of 2021 mergers)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Nuanced verdict: acknowledges rationalization benefits (efficiency, uniformity) while flagging independence risks (executive dominance in appointments); suggests way forward (judicial oversight in selection, appellate structure)	Safe balanced conclusion without clear stance; generic 'reforms are welcome but need monitoring' without specific critique	One-sided conclusion (only praising or only criticizing); no conclusion; abrupt ending; suggests irrelevant solutions (e.g., more tribunals when question is about merging)

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 →