Law 2023 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "Preamble of the Indian Constitution is indicative of basic values that the political system is expected to pursue." How far do you agree with the statement ? Explain with the reference to values that have been enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. 10 (b) "The office of the President under the Indian Constitution has been designed to be largely that of a 'figurehead'." Explain, with reference to the cases decided on the subject. 10 (c) "There is an obvious slant in favour of the Centre, in distribution of powers between Centre and States." Do you agree with the statement ? Explain. 10 (d) "The principles of natural justice are not cast in stone and there is always a possibility of deviation from stated principles of law in view of overall demands of justice." Explain citing decided cases on the subject. 10 (e) Explain and elucidate the grounds of judicial review for administrative action, by quoting decided cases on the subject. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रश्नों में से प्रत्येक का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : 10×5=50 (a) "भारतीय संविधान की उद्देशिका (प्रस्तावना) राजनीतिक व्यवस्था द्वारा अनुसरण के लिए अपेक्षित आधारभूत मूल्यों को उपदर्शित करती है।" आप इस कथन से कहाँ तक सहमत हैं ? संविधान की उद्देशिका (प्रस्तावना) में लिपिबद्ध मूल्यों का संदर्भ देते हुए व्याख्या कीजिए। 10 (b) "भारतीय संविधान में राष्ट्रपति का पद मुख्यतः 'नाम मात्र के प्रमुख' के रूप में परिकल्पित है।" इस विषय पर निर्णीत वादों के संदर्भ में व्याख्या कीजिए। 10 (c) "केंद्र तथा राज्य के बीच शक्ति वितरण में केंद्र के प्रति स्पष्ट झुकाव परिलक्षित होता है।" क्या आप इस कथन से सहमत हैं ? व्याख्या कीजिए। 10 (d) "नैसर्गिक न्याय के सिद्धांत पत्थर में नहीं ढाले गए हैं और समग्र न्याय की माँग की दृष्टि से उनमें स्थापित विधि के सिद्धांतों से विचलन की सदैव संभावना रहती है।" इस विषय पर विनिश्चित वादों का संदर्भ देकर व्याख्या कीजिए। 10 (e) इस विषय पर निर्णीत वादों का उद्धरण देते हुए प्रशासनिक कार्यवाही के न्यायिक पुनरावलोकन के आधारों की व्याख्या एवं विशदीकरण कीजिए। 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Law questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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

Each sub-part requires approximately 150 words and carries 10 marks; allocate roughly 3 minutes per part with balanced time distribution. For (a), begin with the Berubari Union case and Kesavananda Bharati position on the Preamble's status; for (b), contrast the text of Articles 53, 74, and 75 with the actual convention developed post-1976; for (c), structure around legislative, administrative, and financial federal asymmetries; for (d), move from the audi alteram partem and nemo judex rules to their qualified exceptions; for (e), adopt the Wednesbury-GCHQ framework with Indian adaptations. Conclude each part with a one-line synthesis rather than separate conclusions.

Key points expected

  • (a) Preamble as 'source of authority' (Kesavananda Bharati) and 'key to open mind of makers' (Berubari Union); values: Justice (social, economic, political), Liberty (thought, expression, belief, faith, worship), Equality (status, opportunity), Fraternity (dignity, unity, integrity)
  • (b) Constitutional text (Article 53: executive power vested in President) versus 42nd Amendment (Article 74: binding advice) and 44th Amendment restoration; judicial position in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) and Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955)
  • (c) Legislative: residuary power (Entry 97, Union List), Union List predominance (100 entries vs. 61); Administrative: Article 256-257, 365; Financial: Article 268-293, Finance Commission mechanism; emergency provisions (Articles 352, 356, 360)
  • (d) Audi alteram partem and nemo judex in rex judicata; exceptions: public interest (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India), urgency (A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India), impracticability (Union of India v. T.R. Verma), and post-decisional hearing (Hussainara Khatoon)
  • (e) Grounds: illegality (ultra vires, error of law), irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness), procedural impropriety (natural justice), proportionality (post-Pharmaceuticals); cases: Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation, Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (GCHQ), Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, Kraipak

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Articles 14, 38, 39, 46 for (a); Articles 53, 74, 75, 78 for (b); Articles 245-255, 256-257, 268-293, 352-360 for (c); correct identification of natural justice rules and their statutory embeddings for (d); accurate reproduction of Wednesbury principles and their Indian constitutional grounding for (e)General reference to correct constitutional parts without specific article numbers; conflation of 42nd and 44th Amendment positions in (b); vague reference to 'emergency provisions' without specifying Articles 352/356/360 in (c)Incorrect article citations (e.g., citing Article 368 for Preamble amendment in (a)); confusing President's executive powers with Governor's; misidentifying grounds of judicial review as writ jurisdictions under Articles 32/226 only
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Berubari Union (1960), LIC v. Consumer Education Research Centre (1995); for (b): Shamsher Singh (1974), Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955), S.R. Bommai (1994); for (c): S.R. Bommai, State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977); for (d): Maneka Gandhi (1978), Kraipak (1969), Union of India v. T.R. Verma (1997), Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981); for (e): Wednesbury (1948), GCHQ (1984), Ranjit Thakur (1987), KraipakCorrect case names without years; citing only Kesavananda for (a) without Berubari; mentioning 'Shamsher Singh case' without specifics; generic reference to 'Maneka Gandhi' for natural justice without distinguishing procedural from substantive due processInvented or misattributed cases; citing Golak Nath for Preamble status; confusing Shamsher Singh with other federalism cases; failing to cite any case law for (d) or (e) despite explicit question requirement
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): distinction between Preamble as non-justiciable political manifesto versus interpretive tool; for (b): 'facade' theory versus 'real executive' analysis; for (c): 'holding together' federalism (K.C. Wheare) versus 'coming together' models; for (d): classification of exceptions (exclusion, inclusion, substitution of hearing); for (e): evolution from Wednesbury to proportionality, distinction between review for legality and meritsDescriptive treatment without theoretical framing; stating President is 'nominal head' without explaining the constitutional mechanism; noting Centre-State imbalance without federal theory; listing natural justice exceptions without systematic categorizationConclusory statements without doctrinal basis; asserting Preamble is 'enforceable' or 'justiciable' simpliciter; claiming President has 'no powers'; treating all administrative action as subject to identical standard of review
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): comparison with US Preamble (non-binding) and German Basic Law (objective constitutional values); for (b): Westminster model adaptation, Irish presidential model rejection; for (c): comparative federal models (USA, Canada, Australia) showing Indian asymmetry; for (d): English common law natural justice versus Indian constitutional due process expansion; for (e): English administrative law influence on Indian development post-1980sBrief mention of 'Westminster model' in (b) without elaboration; reference to 'quasi-federal' nature in (c) without K.C. Wheare or subsequent scholarship; acknowledgment of foreign influence without specific jurisdictionNo comparative or structural constitutional analysis; treating Indian provisions as sui generis without systemic context; confusing parliamentary and presidential systems
Conclusion & application20%10For (a): synthesis of Preamble as 'identity card' and 'horizon of constitutional values' with contemporary relevance (e.g., basic structure debates); for (b): nuanced position on President's 'reserve powers' under Article 356, 103, 143; for (c): balanced assessment of federalism evolution (Sarkaria Commission, Punchhi Commission recommendations); for (d): proportionality as emerging limitation on absolute natural justice; for (e): integration of grounds into coherent administrative law framework with recent trends (Vineet Narain, 2G spectrum)Generic concluding sentences ('thus we see', 'in conclusion'); restatement of question without analytical closure; unqualified agreement or disagreement with proposition statementsMissing conclusions for individual parts; contradictory positions across sub-parts; concluding that natural justice 'always applies' or 'never applies'; asserting judicial review is 'unlimited'

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 2023 Paper I