General Studies 2025 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Compare and contrast

Q3

Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'? (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत और संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में क्षमा करने की राष्ट्रपति की शक्ति की तुलना कीजिए तथा विषमताओं को स्पष्ट कीजिए। क्या दोनों देशों में इसकी कोई सीमाएं हैं? 'अग्रिम माफी' क्या होती है? (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Compare and contrast

This question asks you to compare and contrast. 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 'compare and contrast' requires a balanced treatment of similarities and differences between Indian and US presidential pardon powers, followed by limits in both jurisdictions and definition of preemptive pardons. Structure: brief intro stating constitutional basis (Article 72 vs Article II, Section 2) → comparison table or paragraph on scope, nature and procedure → limits in both countries → explanation of preemptive pardons with relevance → concise conclusion on which system offers better checks.

Key points expected

  • India: Article 72; covers Union law cases, death sentences, court-martial; advice of Council of Ministers binding (Maru Ram case)
  • USA: Article II, Section 2; federal crimes only; absolute discretion (no binding advice); Trump pardons illustrate unilateral nature
  • Key contrast: India has quasi-judicial procedure with SC review possibility (Epuru Sudhakar case) vs US plenary power with minimal judicial oversight
  • Limits: India—death sentence only on SC advice (since 1991), judicial review for mala fide; USA—impeachment exclusion, no self-pardon ambiguity, state crimes excluded
  • Preemptive pardons: granted before conviction/legal proceedings; Nixon pardon (1974) classic example; India—rare, usually post-conviction
  • Balanced conclusion on accountability vs executive discretion in constitutional design

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%2Clearly identifies 'compare and contrast' demands both similarities (executive mercy power, constitutional basis) and differences (binding advice, scope of judicial review); addresses all three sub-parts (comparison, limits, preemptive pardons) proportionally within 150 wordsCovers comparison superficially or treats India/USA sequentially without explicit contrast; mentions limits and preemptive pardons but unevenly distributedDescribes only one country or lists facts without comparison; misses preemptive pardons entirely or confuses with other remedies
Content depth & accuracy20%2Accurately cites Article 72 vs Article II Section 2; correctly states binding nature of CoM advice in India (post-42nd Amendment position) vs absolute discretion in US; precise on judicial review scope (Epuru Sudhakar, Kehar Singh)Correct constitutional provisions but vague on whether advice is binding; minor errors on scope (e.g., claiming President can pardon state crimes in US)Wrong constitutional articles; claims President acts independently in India; fundamental misunderstanding of federal limits in US pardon power
Structure & flow20%2Logical progression: constitutional basis → comparison matrix → limits → preemptive pardons → conclusion; tight 150-word discipline with no repetition; clear signposting despite brevityReadable structure but some back-and-forth between countries; word count slightly off or some redundancy in describing powersDisorganized—jumps between topics; no clear separation of comparison, limits and preemptive pardons; exceeds word limit significantly or far too short
Examples / case-law / data20%2Cites Maru Ram v Union of India (1980) on binding advice; Epuru Sudhakar (2006) on judicial review; Nixon pardon (1974) or Trump pardons for preemptive illustration; possibly mentions Kehar Singh on death penaltyMentions one Indian case or one US example generically without names; or names cases without clear relevance to specific pointNo case law or examples; or incorrect examples (e.g., citing Kesavananda for pardon power); confuses Indian and US precedents
Conclusion & analytical edge20%2Brief but sharp conclusion on which system better balances mercy and accountability; or notes contemporary relevance (death penalty abolition debates, US polarization on pardon power); shows awareness of constitutional valuesGeneric conclusion restating points; or no conclusion due to word limit; misses opportunity for analytical insightNo conclusion; or conclusion introducing new factual claims; purely descriptive ending without synthesis

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