Law 2021 Paper I 50 marks Critically examine

Q4

(a) "The provisions of the Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable by any court, but they are fundamental in the governance of the country." Critically examine the role of the Government to fulfil the desired objectives enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution. 20 (b) Examine the role of State Legal Services Authority in promoting legal literacy and right of women and children in the State. 15 (c) What is meant by the 'Doctrine of Separation of Powers' ? Is strict adherence of the doctrine possible under a parliamentary form of government ? Discuss with the help of relevant case laws. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "राज्य की नीति के निदेशक तत्वों (सिद्धांतों) के प्रावधान किसी भी न्यायालय द्वारा प्रवर्तनीय नहीं हैं, किन्तु फिर भी वे (तत्व) देश के शासन में मूलभूत हैं ।" संविधान के भाग IV में अंकित वांछित उद्देश्यों को प्राप्त (पूर्ण) करने में सरकार की भूमिका का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । 20 (b) किसी राज्य में विधिक साक्षरता और महिलाओं तथा बच्चों के अधिकार के उत्थान में राज्य विधिक सेवा प्राधिकरण की भूमिका का परीक्षण कीजिए । 15 (c) 'शक्ति पृथक्करण के सिद्धांत' का क्या तात्पर्य है ? क्या संसदीय प्रणाली की सरकार में इस सिद्धांत का कठोरता से पालन संभव है ? सुसंगत निर्णयज विधियों की सहायता से विवेचना कीजिए । 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 directive 'critically examine' for part (a) demands balanced analysis with both strengths and limitations, while parts (b) and (c) require 'examine' and 'discuss' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then address each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, ensuring part (a) includes critical evaluation of government efforts and judicial harmonization; part (b) covers SLSA functions with specific schemes for women and children; and part (c) defines the doctrine, explains parliamentary deviations, and cites Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi, and Ram Jawaya Kapur. Conclude with an integrated observation on constitutional governance.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Critical analysis of Article 37 non-enforceability versus Article 38-51 goals; government legislative and executive measures like MGNREGA, RTE, NFSA; judicial harmonization through Minerva Mills, Kesavananda (basic structure), and Article 25(2)(b) religious reform cases
  • Part (a): Tension between DPSP and Fundamental Rights with Golak Nath, Minerva Mills, and post-Constitution 42nd Amendment developments; judicial review limitations and PIL as indirect enforcement
  • Part (b): Structure and functions of State Legal Services Authority under Legal Services Authorities Act 1987; Lok Adalats, legal aid clinics, and Nyaya Mitra schemes
  • Part (b): Specific SLSA initiatives for women (Nirbhaya Fund-linked legal aid, domestic violence protection, family court counseling) and children (Juvenile Justice Act compliance, POCSO victim support, child-friendly court infrastructure)
  • Part (c): Definition of separation of powers (Montesquieu's tripartite classification) and its Indian constitutional embodiment in Articles 50, 121, 211, 361
  • Part (c): Parliamentary system's departure from strict separation: collective responsibility, delegated legislation, judicial review of legislative/executive action; Kesavananda (basic structure includes separation), Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (election case), Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (executive functions)
  • Part (c): Functional overlap analysis: judicial activism (Vishaka guidelines), legislative privileges (Keshav Singh case), and executive ordinance-making power
  • Integrated conclusion: DPSP-SLSA-separation as interconnected pillars of constitutional governance requiring calibrated balance rather than rigid compartmentalization

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Articles 36-51 for DPSP with specific articles (38, 39, 46, 50); accurate sections of Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (Sections 6, 9, 19, 22); correct constitutional provisions for separation (Articles 50, 53, 74, 75, 121, 211, 361); no conflation of DPSP with Fundamental RightsGeneral mention of Part IV DPSP without specific articles; basic reference to SLSA existence without statutory sections; vague identification of separation doctrine without article citations; minor errors in article numbersConfusion between DPSP and Fundamental Rights (e.g., calling DPSP enforceable); incorrect statutory framework for SLSA; fundamental misunderstanding of separation provisions; significant article misattribution
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Minerva Mills (harmonization), Kesavananda (basic structure), Golak Nath, Champakam Dorairajan; for (c): Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Ram Jawaya Kapur, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan; accurate facts and ratio; recent SLSA-related jurisprudence if citedMention of landmark cases without precise facts or ratio; conflation of similar cases; missing some critical decisions for one sub-part; general reference to 'Supreme Court held' without naming casesIncorrect case names (e.g., 'Keshavanand' instead of Kesavananda); wrong facts attributed to cases; fictitious case citations; complete absence of case law for part (c) which specifically demands it
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Sophisticated analysis of 'positive non-justiciability' and directive principles as 'moral mandate'; for (c): Clear exposition of 'pure' versus 'functional' separation, distinction between US 'strict' and UK 'fusion' models applied to India; recognition of parliamentary sovereignty constraintsBasic description of DPSP as non-enforceable without doctrinal depth; standard definition of separation without model comparison; superficial treatment of parliamentary deviations without analytical frameworkConfusion between doctrine of separation and rule of law; treating DPSP as completely irrelevant due to non-enforceability; failure to distinguish between separation of powers and separation of functions; no doctrinal engagement
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Comparison with Irish Constitution (source of DPSP) and contrast with South African justiciable socio-economic rights; for (c): Explicit comparison with US presidential system (Marbury v. Madison, checks and balances) and UK parliamentary sovereignty; analysis of how Indian Constitution synthesizes both modelsBrief mention of foreign constitutional influence without elaboration; general statement that India follows British model; limited comparative engagement restricted to one sub-partNo comparative dimension; treating Indian constitutional arrangements as entirely sui generis without acknowledging foreign influences; incorrect comparisons (e.g., claiming India has presidential system)
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesized conclusion connecting all three parts: DPSP fulfillment requires legal services accessibility (SLSA) which depends on proper separation of powers preventing executive encroachment on judicial independence; contemporary relevance (e.g., recent legal aid statistics, judicial appointments controversy); forward-looking recommendationsSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic statement on importance of constitutional values; no contemporary application or recommendationsMissing conclusion entirely; abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body of answer; no connection between the three sub-parts despite their thematic interrelation

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