Law 2021 Paper I 50 marks Critically examine

Q2

(a) "Pluralism is the keystone of Indian culture and religious tolerance is the bedrock of Indian Secularism. It is based on the belief that all religions are equally good and efficacious pathways to perfection of God-realisation. Thus, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of religion which is not absolute." Critically examine the above statement with the help of constitutional provisions and relevant case laws. 20 (b) Discuss the procedure for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and transfer of judges of the High Courts in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India. Also refer to the constitutional provisions. 15 (c) Discuss the purpose, function and use of Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution of India. Should these provisions be restructured ? What are the consequences of State's defiance of the directives issued under these Articles by the Union ? 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "भारतीय संस्कृति की आधारशिला बहुलवाद (अनेकवाद) है और भारतीय निरपेक्षता का आधार धार्मिक सहिष्णुता है । यह इस विश्वास पर आधारित है कि ईश्वरीय अनुभूति की पूर्णता (सिद्धि) प्राप्त करने के लिए सभी धर्म समान रूप से अच्छे और समर्थ हैं । इस प्रकार, सभी व्यक्तियों को धर्म की स्वतंत्रता का समान अधिकार प्राप्त है परंतु यह (अधिकार) आत्यंतिक नहीं है ।" संवैधानिक उपबंधों एवं सुसंगत निर्णय विधि की सहायता से उपयुक्त कथन का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । 20 (b) उच्चतम न्यायालय एवं उच्च न्यायालयों के न्यायाधीशों की नियुक्ति तथा उच्च न्यायालयों के न्यायाधीशों के स्थानांतरण की प्रक्रिया की विवेचना भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय के विनिर्णयों के आलोक में कीजिए । संवैधानिक उपबंधों का भी संदर्भ दीजिए । 15 (c) भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 256 एवं 257 के उद्देश्य, कार्य और उपयोग की विवेचना कीजिए । क्या इन उपबंधों की पुनःसंरचना की जानी चाहिए ? इन अनुच्छेदों के अंतर्गत केंद्र द्वारा जारी निर्देशों की राज्य द्वारा अवज्ञा किए जाने के क्या परिणाम होते हैं ? 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Law questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically 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 primary directive 'critically examine' in part (a) demands balanced analysis with both supportive and critical perspectives. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief unified introduction, then three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with constitutional provisions and case laws, followed by a synthesizing conclusion on constitutional governance.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Analysis of Articles 25-28, concept of 'Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava' vs. strict secularism, and cases like S.R. Bommai, Ismail Faruqui, and Shayara Bano on essential religious practices and limitations
  • Part (a): Critical examination of 'equal respect' theory vs. 'wall of separation' model, with reference to minority rights under Articles 29-30 and the debate on uniform civil code
  • Part (b): Detailed procedure under Articles 124(2), 217, 222 and the evolution from Judges Cases (I, II, III) to NJAC and back to collegium via Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016)
  • Part (b): Transfer of judges under Article 222, including S.P. Gupta and subsequent cases establishing judicial primacy and the 'consultation' meaning
  • Part (c): Purpose of Articles 256 (executive power to ensure compliance) and 257 (directions to States) in maintaining federal governance and national integrity
  • Part (c): Consequences of State defiance including Article 356 implications, with reference to State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and the debate on restructuring these provisions post-Sarkaria Commission recommendations

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Articles 25-28, 29-30 for (a); Articles 124(2), 217, 222 for (b); Articles 256, 257 with Article 365 for (c); no conflation of similar provisionsCorrect identification of major articles but some confusion between Article 222 (transfer) and Article 224 (additional judges), or vague reference to 'Directive Principles' for (c)Incorrect article numbers, confusing fundamental rights with directive principles, or omitting key constitutional provisions entirely
Case-law citation20%10For (a): S.R. Bommai, Ismail Faruqui, Shayara Bano, Acharya Jagdishwaranand; For (b): Three Judges Cases, NJAC case, S.P. Gupta; For (c): State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, with accurate facts and ratioMentions landmark cases but with inaccurate facts or conflates judgments; cites Bommai for secularism but misses its federalism dimension relevant to (c)No case laws cited, or cites irrelevant cases like Kesavananda without connecting to specific question requirements
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): 'Principled distance' vs. 'strict neutrality' models; For (b): 'Judicial primacy' doctrine evolution; For (c): 'Cooperative federalism' vs. 'unitary bias' analysis with critical evaluation of Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendationsDescribes doctrines without critical engagement; accepts collegium system or Article 256-257 framework without analyzing structural tensionsPurely descriptive with no doctrinal framework; fails to identify any constitutional philosophy underlying the provisions
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Comparison with American 'wall of separation' and French laïcité; For (b): Contrast with UK judicial appointments; For (c): Analysis of federal systems like Germany/Australia on Union directives, with 101st Amendment and GST Council as contemporary federalism exampleBrief mention of foreign comparisons without integration into Indian constitutional analysis; or focuses only on one sub-partNo comparative perspective; treats constitutional provisions in isolation without systemic context of Indian federalism or secularism debates
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes all three parts into coherent thesis on constitutional governance: secularism as federal principle, judicial independence as federal safeguard, and Articles 256-257 as tension points requiring balancing; offers concrete reform suggestions grounded in commission reportsSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic recommendations like 'strengthen federalism' without specificityNo conclusion, or abrupt ending; conclusions contradict analysis or propose unconstitutional solutions like abolishing Article 356 entirely

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