Law 2024 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Examine the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to criminal matters. (10 marks) (b) The Parliament or any State Legislature should keep within the domain assigned to it and not encroach upon the other's subject. Critically examine. (10 marks) (c) "Every person who is a member of civil service of the Union holds office during the pleasure of the President." Is there any exception to this rule? Describe. (10 marks) (d) The Indian Constitution permits delegation but imposes specific restrictions to ensure alignment with the Parent Act and protect legislative intent. Examine with illustrations. (10 marks) (e) "A law is void only to the extent of inconsistency or contravention with the relevant Fundamental Right." Explain with the help of decided cases. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) उच्च न्यायालयों से आपराधिक मामलों में आने वाली अपीलों के संबंध में उच्चतम न्यायालय की अपीलीय अधिकारिता का परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) संसद अथवा किसी राज्य विधायिका को अपने निर्धारित कार्यक्षेत्र में ही रहना चाहिए तथा अन्यों के विषयक्षेत्र में अतिक्रमण नहीं करना चाहिए। आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) "प्रत्येक व्यक्ति, जो संघ की सिविल सेवा का सदस्य है, राष्ट्रपति के प्रसादपर्यंत पद धारित करता है।" क्या इस नियम का कोई अपवाद है? वर्णन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) भारतीय संविधान प्रत्यायोजन की अनुमति तो देता है, लेकिन साथ ही मूल विधि से सरेखन एवं विधायी आशय को सुरक्षित रखने हेतु विशेष प्रतिबंध भी आरोपित करता है। दृष्टांतों की सहायता से परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) "सुसंगत मूलभूत अधिकार के उल्लंघन में अथवा असंगत होने की सीमा तक ही कोई विधि शून्य होगी।" निर्णीत वादों की सहायता से स्पष्ट कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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' demands balanced analysis with evaluation of merits and demerits. For (a), spend ~30 words on Article 134/134A and 136; for (b), ~30 words on federalism with pith and substance doctrine; for (c), ~30 words on Article 310 exceptions; for (d), ~30 words on delegated legislation limits; for (e), ~30 words on Article 13 severability doctrine with cases. Structure: constitutional provision → judicial interpretation → critical evaluation per part.

Key points expected

  • (a) Article 134 (appeal as of right in criminal matters), Article 134A (certificate for appeal), Article 136 (special leave petition) with distinction between regular and SLP jurisdiction
  • (b) Seventh Schedule demarcation, doctrine of pith and substance, doctrine of colourable legislation, and judicial review tests from State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
  • (c) Article 310 pleasure doctrine, exceptions under Article 311 (reasonable opportunity, no dismissal by subordinate authority, no punishment on criminal charge without inquiry)
  • (d) Essential legislative functions non-delegable, conditional/subordinate legislation distinction, Re Delhi Laws Act case and Gwalior Rayon Mills case on permissible delegation
  • (e) Article 13(2) read with Article 13(1), doctrine of severability (R.M.D.C. v. State of Bombay), doctrine of eclipse, and distinction between void ab initio and voidable

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Articles 134, 134A, 136 for (a); Seventh Schedule and Articles 245-246 for (b); Articles 310-311 for (c); Articles 13 and delegated legislation limits for (d)-(e); no substitution errorsMentions correct articles but conflates 134/136 or omits 134A; vague on Seventh Schedule lists; identifies Article 310 but misses 311 exceptionsWrong article citations (e.g., Article 226 for SLP), confuses civil/criminal appellate provisions, or omits constitutional basis entirely
Case-law citation20%10Cites Pritam Singh v. State for (a); F.N. Balsara, A.S. Ponnammal for (b); Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab for (c); Re Delhi Laws Act, Gwalior Rayon for (d); R.M.D.C., A.K. Gopalan, Minerva Mills for (e)Names 2-3 landmark cases correctly but misses sub-part specific precedents or cites cases without factual contextNo case citations, or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., Kesavananda for severability, Vishaka for delegation)
Doctrinal analysis20%10Explains pith and substance with repugnancy test for (b); essential legislative function doctrine for (d); severability vs. inseverability with blue-pencil test for (e); critical evaluation of pleasure doctrine's colonial origins for (c)States doctrines by name without explaining their application to specific sub-parts; descriptive rather than analyticalNo doctrinal engagement, or confuses doctrines (e.g., eclipse with severability, pith and substance with harmonious construction)
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Contrasts Indian SLP discretion with UK leave requirements for (a); compares Canadian/Australian federalism tests for (b); notes ILO conventions on civil service protection for (c); contrasts US non-delegation doctrine for (d); compares German proportionality for (e)Brief mention of federalism principles or separation of powers without specific comparative jurisdiction referenceNo comparative or structural constitutional analysis; treats each sub-part in isolation without thematic connection
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes: judicial discretion in (a) balances finality and justice; cooperative federalism moderates strict demarcation in (b); Article 311 exceptions show constitutional balance in (c); delegation safeguards preserve democracy in (d); severability protects legislative intent in (e)Summarizes each sub-part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; generic conclusion on constitutionalismNo conclusion, or abrupt ending; fails to address 'critically examine' directive with evaluative closure

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 2024 Paper I