Law 2022 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) 'Absolute equality may itself be a cause of inequality.' In the light of this statement, discuss substantive equality. (10 marks) (b) 'To preserve basic freedoms and dignity of individuals, a Constitution should be permeated with Constitutionalism.' Discuss. (10 marks) (c) Explain the legal position in case of repugnancy between Union and State laws with the help of decided case laws. Which law shall prevail in case of repugnancy? (10 marks) (d) What are the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in a recent decision for quantifying and providing quota for Other Backward Classes in local body elections? (10 marks) (e) Elucidate 'Wednesbury's Principles of Unreasonableness'. Do these principles provide in any way, scope for 'merits review' of administrative decisions? (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रश्नों में से प्रत्येक का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) 'पूर्ण समानता स्वयं में असमानता का एक कारण हो सकती है।' इस कथन के आलोक में, वास्तविक (मौलिक) समानता पर चर्चा कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) 'बुनियादी स्वतंत्रताओं और व्यक्तियों की गरिमा बनाए रखने के लिए संविधान को संविधानवाद के साथ पारगम्य होना चाहिए।' चर्चा कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) निर्णयज बाद विधियों की सहायता से संघ और राज्य की विधियों के बीच असंगति के संबंध में विधिक स्थिति की व्याख्या कीजिए। असंगति की स्थिति में कौन-सी विधि अधिभावी होगी? (10 अंक) (d) स्थानीय निकाय चुनावों में उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा हाल के निर्णय में अन्य पिछड़े वर्गों के लिए कोटा निधारित करने एवं प्रदान करने के लिए कौन-से परीक्षण निर्धारित किए गए हैं? (10 अंक) (e) 'वेडन्सबरी के अयुक्तियुक्तता के सिद्धांतों' को स्पष्ट कीजिए। क्या ये सिद्धांत किसी भी तरह से प्रशासनिक निर्णयों की 'योग्यता-समीक्षा' की गुंजाइश प्रदान करते हैं? (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Law questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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

This multi-part question requires balanced treatment across five 10-mark sub-parts, with approximately 150 words per part. For (a), discuss substantive equality through the lens of formal versus substantive equality; for (b), explain constitutionalism as limitation of power; for (c), analyse Article 254 with case laws; for (d), apply Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (2024) on OBC quotas in local bodies; for (e), elucidate Wednesbury principles and distinguish from merits review. Allocate roughly equal time and words to each part, ensuring precise legal provisions and recent precedents for parts (c) and (d).

Key points expected

  • (a) Substantive equality: distinction between formal equality (Article 14's 'equals treated equally') and substantive equality (treating unequals unequally); reference to Aristotle's principle and Indian jurisprudence in E.P. Royappa, Maneka Gandhi, and Navtej Singh Johar on transformative constitutionalism
  • (b) Constitutionalism: concept of limited government, separation of powers, rule of law; contrast between 'Constitution having a legal existence' versus 'Constitutionalism as normative practice'; reference to Kesavananda Bharati (basic structure) and I.R. Coelho
  • (c) Repugnancy under Article 254: conditions for repugnancy (direct conflict, irreconcilable inconsistency); doctrine of occupied field; precedents including M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, and Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Union law prevails in Concurrent List conflicts
  • (d) OBC quotas in local bodies: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2024) — triple test of (i) empirical data on backwardness, (ii) inadequate representation, (iii) quantifiable data for proportionate reservation; application to Articles 243D and 243T
  • (e) Wednesbury unreasonableness: Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) — three grounds (relevant/irrelevant considerations, Wednesbury unreasonableness, improper purpose); distinction from merits review (no substitution of decision-maker's judgment); reference to Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service and Indian adoption in Tata Cellular v. Union of India

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Article 14 for (a), Articles 13 and basic structure for (b), Article 254 with clauses (1) and (2) for (c), Articles 243D/243T with 106th Amendment for (d), and correctly identifies Wednesbury grounds for (e); no conflation of provisionsMentions correct Articles but with minor errors in sub-clauses or omits key constitutional provisions in one or two sub-partsMisstates articles (e.g., confuses Article 254 with 246), omits critical provisions entirely, or cites irrelevant constitutional provisions
Case-law citation20%10Cites specific landmark judgments for each part: E.P. Royappa/Navtej for (a), Kesavananda/I.R. Coelho for (b), M. Karunanidhi/T. Barai/Deep Chand for (c), Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (2024) with precision for (d), and Associated Provincial Picture Houses/Tata Cellular for (e); includes years and ratioNames major cases but lacks specificity in years, ratios, or misses one sub-part's case law entirelyGeneric references without case names, incorrect case citations, or complete absence of judicial precedents across multiple sub-parts
Doctrinal analysis20%10Demonstrates sophisticated doctrinal engagement: Aristotelian equality for (a), normative constitutionalism theory for (b), occupied field doctrine and pith and substance for (c), triple test mechanics for (d), and clear distinction between Wednesbury review and merits review for (e)Explains basic doctrines but lacks depth in application or fails to distinguish closely related concepts in one sub-partSuperficial treatment of doctrines, conflates distinct legal concepts (e.g., merges Wednesbury with proportionality), or entirely misses doctrinal dimensions
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Effectively integrates comparative constitutionalism: transformative constitutionalism (South Africa/Canada) for (a); global constitutionalism debates for (b); federalism principles and comparative repugnancy (Australia/Canada) for (c); intersection of local self-governance and reservation jurisprudence for (d); English administrative law origins and Indian adaptation for (e)Makes passing comparative references or identifies constitutional values without systematic integration across sub-partsPurely descriptive answers with no comparative dimension or constitutional theory engagement; treats parts as isolated technical questions
Conclusion & application20%10Each sub-part concludes with clear synthesis: (a) reconciles formal-substantive equality tension; (b) affirms constitutionalism as living practice; (c) states clear prevailing law rule with practical implications; (d) assesses Gawali's impact on local democracy; (e) definitively distinguishes Wednesbury from merits review with contemporary relevanceProvides conclusions for most parts but they are repetitive, vague, or fail to address the specific question posed in one sub-partMissing conclusions for multiple sub-parts, or conclusions that contradict the analysis; no practical application or forward-looking assessment

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 2022 Paper I