Law 2021 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "The Fundamental Rights may be said to constitutionalise social values of existing society." Explain and illustrate. 10 (b) "Public Interest Litigation in India is judge-led and even to some extent judge-induced." Explain with the help of relevant case law. 10 (c) "Right to Education is the base for the Fundamental Rights and Human Rights." Discuss the efforts made by the Government with regard to Right to Education of the children. 10 (d) Explain the relationship between the President and the Council of Ministers. Is the President bound to accept the advice of the Council of Ministers ? Discuss. 10 (e) Delegation of 'Legislative Powers' has neither been permitted nor prohibited under the Indian Constitution. Discuss the constitutionality of delegated legislation with the help of decided cases. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रश्नों में से प्रत्येक का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) "मूल अधिकारों के बारे में यह कहा जा सकता है कि उन्होंने वर्तमान समाज के सामाजिक मूल्यों का संवैधानिकरण कर दिया है।" दृष्टांत के साथ व्याख्या कीजिए। 10 (b) "भारत में लोकहितवाद न्यायधीश-नीत (judge-led) तथा वास्तव में कुछ हद तक न्यायधीश-प्रेरित (judge-induced) है।" सुसंगत निर्णय विधि की सहायता से स्पष्ट कीजिए। 10 (c) "शिक्षा का अधिकार मूल अधिकारों एवं मानव अधिकारों का आधार है।" बच्चों के शिक्षा के अधिकार के संबंध में सरकार द्वारा किए गए प्रयासों की विवेचना कीजिए। 10 (d) राष्ट्रपति और मंत्रिपरिषद् के बीच संबंध की व्याख्या कीजिए। क्या राष्ट्रपति मंत्रिपरिषद् की सलाह मानने के लिए बाध्य है ? विवेचना कीजिए। 10 (e) भारतीय संविधान के तहत 'विधायी शक्तियों' का प्रत्यायोजन न तो अनुमन्य (प्रदत) है और न ही प्रतिबद्ध है। निर्णीत वादों की सहायता से प्रत्यायोजित विधान की संवैधानिकता की विवेचना कीजिए। 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Law 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' demands conceptual clarity with illustrations across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words total), spending roughly equal time on each since all carry 10 marks. Structure each part as: definition/concept → constitutional provision → illustration/case law → brief conclusion. Prioritize precision over elaboration given the tight word limit.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Fundamental Rights as embodiment of social values; cite Articles 14-18 (equality), 19 (liberty), 21 (life), 25-28 (religion) with illustrations like abolition of untouchability reflecting caste reform or uniform civil code debates
  • For (b): PIL as judge-led mechanism; cite S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), M.C. Mehta cases, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan; explain epistolary jurisdiction and suo motu powers
  • For (c): RTE as foundational right; cite Article 21A (86th Amendment), Unnikrishnan case, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009; mention Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Mid-Day Meal Scheme
  • For (d): President-Council relationship under Articles 53, 74, 75; 42nd and 44th Amendment implications; cite Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab on binding nature of advice; mention Ram Jawaya Kapur on aid and advice
  • For (e): Delegated legislation constitutionality; cite In re Delhi Laws Act, Gwalior Rayon Mills v. Assistant Commissioner, Harishankar Bagla v. State of M.P.; essential legislative functions doctrine

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Articles 14-18, 19, 21, 21A, 25-28, 53, 74, 75 for respective parts; mentions 42nd/44th/86th Amendments correctly; accurately references RTE Act 2009 and Delhi Laws Act without confusionIdentifies most relevant articles but with minor errors (e.g., conflating Article 21 and 21A); mentions amendments without specifying numbers; some provisions cited without precisionIncorrect or missing article citations; confuses fundamental rights with DPSP; omits key amendments; cites wrong statutes (e.g., mentioning 73rd Amendment for RTE)
Case-law citation20%10Cites S.P. Gupta, M.C. Mehta, Vishaka, Unnikrishnan, Samsher Singh, Ram Jawaya Kapur, In re Delhi Laws Act, Gwalior Rayon Mills with accurate facts and ratio; uses cases to illustrate judge-led PIL and delegated legislation limitsMentions landmark cases but with incomplete facts or incorrect ratios; cites some relevant cases per part but misses pivotal ones (e.g., omits Samsher Singh for presidential advice)No case law cited or entirely wrong cases; confuses PIL cases with writ jurisdiction cases generally; cites overruled or irrelevant precedents
Doctrinal analysis20%10Explains 'constitutionalisation of social values,' 'epistolary jurisdiction,' 'essential legislative functions,' 'aid and advice' doctrine with conceptual depth; shows how PIL transformed from adversarial to inquisitorial; analyzes non-delegation doctrine evolutionDefines doctrines superficially; understands judge-led PIL but not its constitutional implications; recognizes delegated legislation validity but misses 'essential functions' limitationNo doctrinal engagement; confuses PIL with ordinary litigation; treats presidential advice as optional; fails to distinguish conditional and unconditional delegation
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Contrasts Indian PIL with US standing requirements; compares presidential position with British monarch; notes unique Indian constitutional features (transformative constitution); references Kesavananda's basic structure in context of amendments affecting these areasBrief mention of comparative elements without elaboration; notes Indian exceptionalism in PIL without contrast; standard description of Westminster model influenceNo comparative or structural constitutional analysis; treats provisions in isolation; fails to connect parts to broader constitutional philosophy (e.g., no mention of transformative constitution)
Conclusion & application20%10Each part concludes with contemporary relevance: FRs adapting to digital privacy, PIL's overreach concerns, RTE's implementation gaps, presidential discretion in hung assemblies, delegated legislation during COVID-19; balanced critical assessmentGeneric conclusions per part without specific contemporary application; descriptive endings without critical evaluation; misses opportunity to note tensions (e.g., judicial activism concerns)No conclusions or entirely repetitive; ends with unsupported assertions; ignores current debates (e.g., no mention of recent PIL criticism or RTE's 12th extension challenges)

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 Law 2021 Paper I