(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 a

Question

(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

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

Secularism and religious freedom 
The statement is broadly correct but needs qualification. Indian secularism is *Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava*—equal respect, not indifference: the State does not favour one religion but may regulate religious practice for public order, morality, health and fundamental rights. Articles 25–28 guarantee freedom of conscience, profession, practice and propagation, management of religious institutions, and regulation of religious instruction in State-aided or wholly State-owned institutions. S.R. Bommai held secularism part of the basic structure; Ismail Faruqui allowed State regulation of a place of public worship; Shayara Bano examined triple talaq as an essential religious practice and struck it down under Article 14. Thus, religious freedom is not absolute. However, the claim that all religions are “equally good and efficacious” is theological, not constitutional. The Constitution does not judge religious efficacy; it secures equal citizenship. The “equal respect” model differs from the “wall of separation” because India permits reasonable regulation and affirmative protection of minorities under Articles 29–30. The UCC debate shows the tension: uniformity may promote equality, but coercive uniformity may flatten pluralism. A critical verdict is that Indian secularism is pluralist and tolerant, but its strength lies in limiting religious power where it harms individuals, not in declaring all religions equally efficacious.

Appointment and transfer of judges 
Article 124(2) provides for appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President after consultation with such judges as the CJI considers necessary; Articles 217 and 222 provide analogous provisions for High Court appointments and transfers. In S.P. Gupta, the Court gave executive primacy, reading “consultation” as advice that need not be followed. The First Judges Case restored judicial primacy, holding the CJI’s opinion prevails. The Second Judges Case made the CJI’s opinion that of a collegium of two senior-most SC judges for High Court appointments. The Third Judges Case expanded the collegium and clarified that consultation is not mere advice but a binding process, while preserving the President’s power to seek reasons. For Supreme Court appointments, the collegium is the CJI and four senior-most SC judges; for transfers, the CJI and four senior-most SC judges. The NJAC, including the CJI, two senior judges, the Law Minister and two eminent persons, was struck down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) as violating the basic structure by diluting judicial independence. The current position is collegium-based appointment and transfer, with executive power to seek reasons.

Federal executive coordination 
Articles 256 and 257 ensure that the Union executive can direct State executives to comply with laws made by Parliament and to carry out Union directions. Article 256 makes State executive power subject to Union direction where a law requires it; Article 257 empowers the President to require States to hold stocks of essential commodities and, on failure to comply with directions under Article 256 or 257(1), to issue further directions. Their purpose is to preserve cooperative federalism, national integrity, and parliamentary supremacy within competence. They coordinate implementation of central laws, national policies, and disaster response. Restructuring may be desirable to reduce executive overreach and clarify limits, especially after Sarkaria Commission’s caution against casual use of federal instruments. Yet complete removal would weaken the Union’s ability to ensure uniformity. State defiance may lead to judicial enforcement, or, in extreme cases, Article 356 if governance becomes impossible. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India emphasised that Article 356 is a constitutional remedy of last resort, not a political weapon. Thus, Articles 256–257 should be retained but restructured with clearer procedural safeguards, independent review, and a presumption against central direction except where national interest or legal compliance demands it.

(a) "Pluralism is the keystone of Indian culture and religious tolerance is the bedrock of Indian Secularism. It is based on the…

Model answer

What "Critically examine" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2021 Paper I