(a) In the Parliamentary system, though there is no separation between the legislature and the executive in terms of personnel, there is separation of functions between the two. Explain in the light of relevant judicial decisions. (20 marks)

(b) Are

Question

(a) In the Parliamentary system, though there is no separation between the legislature and the executive in terms of personnel, there is separation of functions between the two. Explain in the light of relevant judicial decisions. (20 marks)

(b) Are administrative tribunals competent to examine the constitutional validity of primary legislations? Discuss in the light of case law. (15 marks)

(c) Explain the significance of 'Audi Alteram Partem'. What are the cases or circumstances in which the aforesaid principle of natural justice can be excluded? (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'explain' demands clear exposition with reasoning and evidence. Structure: Introduction defining separation of powers broadly; Part (a) (~40% words/20 marks) – discuss functional separation citing judicial decisions; Part (b) (~30% words/15 marks) – analyse tribunal jurisdiction with case law; Part (c) (~30% words/15 marks) – elucidate audi alteram partem and its exceptions; Conclusion synthesising how these principles maintain constitutional balance.
- (a) Functional separation in parliamentary system: executive as part of legislature yet distinct functions, Article 74/75, collective responsibility vs. legislative scrutiny
- (a) Judicial decisions: Ram Jawaya Kapur (functional separation), Indira Nehru Gandhi (basic structure), Keshavananda (separation as basic structure element)
- (b) Tribunal jurisdiction: constitutional validity of primary legislation – S.P. Sampath Kumar (power of judicial review), L. Chandra Kumar (tribunals not substitutes for High Courts/Supreme Court)
- (b) Ramesh Chandra Singhal, Union of India v. R. Gandhi – tribunals can examine vires of delegated legislation but not primary legislation; power of constitutional interpretation rests with constitutional courts
- (c) Audi alteram partem: significance as rule against bias and fair hearing, components – notice, opportunity to present case, reasoned decision
- (c) Exceptions: statutory exclusion, urgency/national security (Maneka Gandhi), legislative action (Sita Ram), academic disciplinary matters (Bihar School Examination Board), where hearing would be futile
- (c) Natural justice as flexible tool: Mohinder Singh Gill, A.K. Kraipak (implied exclusion)

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Provision / section accuracy	20%	10	Precisely cites Articles 74, 75, 361; Constitutional provisions establishing tribunals (323A, 323B); correctly distinguishes primary vs. delegated legislation; accurately quotes audi alteram partem components	Mentions relevant articles but with minor errors or omissions; conflates primary and delegated legislation; lists natural justice components without constitutional anchoring	Incorrect articles cited; fundamental confusion between constitutional/statutory provisions; missing or wrong legal basis for tribunal jurisdiction
Case-law citation	20%	10	For (a): Ram Jawaya Kapur, Indira Nehru Gandhi, Keshavananda; For (b): S.P. Sampath Kumar, L. Chandra Kumar, R. Gandhi, Ramesh Chandra Singhal with correct holdings; For (c): Maneka Gandhi, Mohinder Singh Gill, A.K. Kraipak, Sita Ram with factual context	Cites major cases but with incomplete facts or holdings; misses critical cases like L. Chandra Kumar for (b) or Maneka Gandhi for (c); some case names incorrect	Few or no case citations; completely wrong case associations; cites cases irrelevant to the specific sub-questions
Doctrinal analysis	20%	10	For (a): Explains functional separation doctrine vs. strict separation; For (b): Analyses why tribunals lack power to strike down primary legislation – preservation of judicial review as basic structure; For (c): Distinguishes between rule against bias and right to fair hearing; explains implied exclusion doctrine	Describes doctrines superficially; conflates functional and personal separation; unclear on why tribunals are limited; lists exceptions to natural justice without doctrinal basis	No doctrinal engagement; treats all separation identically; fundamental misunderstanding of tribunal competence; describes natural justice as absolute rule without exceptions
Comparative / constitutional angle	20%	10	Contrasts Indian parliamentary model with US presidential separation; explains how basic structure doctrine protects judicial review from parliamentary override; connects tribunal limitations to access to justice and Article 32/226; situates natural justice within due process tradition	Brief mention of US/UK comparison without depth; mentions basic structure without linking to tribunal jurisdiction; treats natural justice in isolation from constitutional values	No comparative or constitutional perspective; ignores basic structure relevance; fails to connect principles to constitutional scheme
Conclusion & application	20%	10	Synthesises how functional separation, limited tribunal jurisdiction and natural justice collectively preserve rule of law; critically evaluates current tribunal reforms; suggests balanced approach to natural justice exceptions; forward-looking conclusion on constitutional governance	Summarises each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on importance of separation of powers; no critical evaluation or contemporary relevance	No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely repeats question; completely misses synthesis across three parts

Q4

Directive word: Explain

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2022 Paper I