Law 2023 Paper I 50 marks Critically examine

Q4

(a) What do you understand by breakdown of constitutional machinery in a State ? Critically examine the powers of the President in imposing President's Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution, by citing decided cases on the point. 20 (b) Discuss the objectives of the establishment of Lokpal and Lok Ayukta, and their powers and functions under the Lokpal and Lok Ayuktas Act, 2013. Examine the effectiveness of the said Act. 15 (c) If at any time, it appears to the President that a critical question of law and fact has arisen, the President can obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court. Discuss the role of the Supreme Court in this matter, by giving suitable examples. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) किसी राज्य में संवैधानिक मशीनरी के ठप्प (विराम) हो जाने से आप क्या समझते हैं ? इस बिन्दु पर निर्णीत वादों को उद्धृत करते हुए संविधान के अनुच्छेद 356 के अंतर्गत राष्ट्रपति शासन लागू करने की राष्ट्रपति की शक्तियों का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । 20 (b) लोकपाल एवं लोक आयुक्त अधिनियम, 2013 के अंतर्गत लोकपाल एवं लोक आयुक्त की स्थापना के उद्देश्यों तथा उनकी शक्तियों एवं कार्यों की विवेचना कीजिए । कथित अधिनियम की प्रभावशीलता का परीक्षण कीजिए । 15 (c) यदि किसी समय राष्ट्रपति को प्रतीत होता है कि विधि एवं तथ्य का जटिल प्रश्न उत्पन्न हो गया है, तो राष्ट्रपति उच्चतम न्यायालय की राय प्राप्त कर सकता है । उचित उदाहरण देते हुए इस विषय पर उच्चतम न्यायालय (सुप्रीम कोर्ट) की भूमिका की विवेचना कीजिए । 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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 judgment, while parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss'—comprehensive coverage with evaluation. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on constitutional governance, then systematic treatment of each sub-part with legal provisions, case law, and critical assessment, followed by a synthesizing conclusion on constitutional safeguards and their efficacy.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Definition of 'breakdown of constitutional machinery' under Article 356; distinction between failure of constitutional machinery under Article 356 and failure to comply with Union directions under Article 365
  • Part (a): Critical examination of President's powers—satisfaction (subjective vs objective), scope, duration, legislative powers; landmark cases: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), S.R. Bommai proclamation dissolution test
  • Part (b): Objectives of Lokpal and Lokayuktas—combating corruption in high offices, institutional ombudsman; powers under 2013 Act: inquiry, search, seizure, attachment, prosecution; functions: receiving complaints, preliminary inquiry, investigation, prosecution; critical evaluation of effectiveness—limitations like exclusion of judiciary, CBI bifurcation, delays, pendency, lack of Lokayukta appointments in states
  • Part (c): Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 143—distinction between Article 143(1) and 143(2); binding vs non-binding nature; examples: In re Delhi Laws Act (1951), In re Kerala Education Bill (1957), In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1992), In re Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly dissolution)
  • Synthesis: Critical assessment of constitutional safeguards—whether Article 356, Lokpal, and Article 143 collectively strengthen or reveal tensions in Indian federalism and separation of powers

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Articles 356, 365, 352 (for comparison), 143(1) and 143(2); accurate sections of Lokpal Act 2013 (Sections 14-20 on inquiry, Section 46 on prosecution); correct procedural requirements like parliamentary approval within 2 months for Article 356 proclamationMentions correct articles but with minor errors in sub-sections or procedural details; conflates Article 356 with 352 or 360; general reference to Lokpal provisions without section specificityIncorrect article numbers, confuses advisory jurisdiction with appellate jurisdiction, misstates Lokpal as constitutional body, fundamental errors in procedural requirements
Case-law citation20%10For (a): S.R. Bommai (federalism, secularism, proclamation test), Rameshwar Prasad (mala fide dissolution), State of Rajasthan (justiciability of President's satisfaction), Rao v. Indira Gandhi (1971); for (c): Specific advisory opinions with facts—Delhi Laws Act, Kerala Education Bill, Cauvery reference, 2002 Gujarat reference; accurate ratio and relevanceNames major cases correctly but misstates ratio or facts; omits Bommai or cites without specific propositions; mentions advisory opinions without factual contextNo case law or incorrect case names; cites irrelevant cases; confuses advisory opinions with regular judgments
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Analyzes 'satisfaction'—subjective vs objective, Sarkaria Commission recommendations, 44th Amendment changes, judicial review parameters; for (b): Critical analysis of 'Lokpal as toothless tiger' vs effective deterrent; for (c): Distinction between 143(1) and 143(2), why Article 143(2) opinion is binding, constitutional purpose of advisory jurisdictionDescribes provisions without deep doctrinal engagement; superficial critical analysis; misses Sarkaria Commission or 44th Amendment significance; conflates 143(1) and 143(2)Purely descriptive with no critical element; no understanding of 'satisfaction' doctrine or advisory jurisdiction purpose; fails to identify any constitutional tension
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Federalism implications—unitary tilt, misuse as political tool, comparison with Governor's role; for (b): Comparison with Ombudsman (Sweden), Lokayukta in Karnataka/Kerala models, Vishwanathan Committee; for (c): Comparison with other jurisdictions' advisory functions, role in constitutional silences; synthesis on how these mechanisms balance/tilt federal structureMentions federalism or separation of powers in passing; no comparative analysis; treats each part in isolation without constitutional synthesisNo constitutional perspective; ignores federalism, separation of powers, or democratic accountability dimensions; no comparative reference even where obvious
Conclusion & application20%10Balanced conclusion assessing whether Article 356, Lokpal, and Article 143 collectively serve constitutional objectives; suggests reforms (Sarkaria/Punchhi Commission recommendations for 356, Lokpal strengthening, wider use of 143); connects to contemporary issues (recent Article 356 impositions, Lokpal operational delays, pending references)Generic conclusion summarizing points; no specific reform suggestions; weak connection to contemporary relevanceNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely repetitive summary; no reform suggestions or contemporary application; conclusion contradicts body of answer

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