Law 2024 Paper I 50 marks Elaborate

Q2

(a) The concept of Public Interest Litigation is an exception to the rule of 'locus standi'. Elaborate in the light of its evolution, aims and objects in India with the help of leading cases. Also discuss its drawbacks. (20 marks) (b) "Constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a Fundamental Law." In the light of this, differentiate between distinctive features of Constitution and Constitutionalism. (15 marks) (c) Discuss the relationship between the President and the Council of Ministers under the parliamentary form of government in India. Explain with the help of relevant constitutional provisions. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) लोक हित वाद की अवधारणा 'लोकस स्टैंडी' के नियम का अपवाद है। भारत में अग्रणी वादों की सहायता से इसके विकास, उद्देश्यों तथा लक्ष्यों के संदर्भ में विस्तृत कीजिए। इसकी कमियों का भी वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "संविधानवाद एक मूल विधि के अंतर्गत सीमित शासन की अवधारणा है।" इसके आलोक में, संविधान तथा संविधानवाद की सुस्पष्ट विशेषताओं के मध्य अंतर स्थापित कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) भारत में संसदीय शासन-प्रणाली के अन्तर्गत राष्ट्रपति तथा मंत्रिपरिषद् के मध्य सम्बन्धों की विवेचना कीजिए। सुसंगत संवैधानिक प्रावधानों की सहायता से स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Law questions

Directive word: Elaborate

This question asks you to elaborate. 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 'elaborate' demands comprehensive exposition with depth and detail. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, covering PIL's evolution through Hussainara Khatoon, S.P. Gupta, and M.C. Mehta, plus drawbacks like frivolous litigation; devote ~30% each to parts (b) and (c). For (b), contrast Constitution as document with Constitutionalism as principle of limited government; for (c), analyze Articles 74, 75, 78 with Kesavananda and S.R. Bommai. Structure: brief introduction → systematic treatment of all three parts → integrated conclusion on constitutional governance.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): PIL as exception to locus standi—trace evolution from traditional standing (Sanghar Udhog) to liberalized approach in S.P. Gupta (1981), with Hussainara Khatoon (1979) and M.C. Mehta (1986) establishing epistolary jurisdiction; mention aims (access to justice, social justice) and drawbacks (misuse, judicial overreach, pendency)
  • Part (a): Leading cases—Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) on bonded labour, Sheela Barse (1983) on prisoners' rights, Subhash Kumar (1991) on environment, demonstrating PIL's expansion into socio-economic rights
  • Part (b): Distinction between Constitution (written document, supreme law, Article 368 amendability) and Constitutionalism (normative principle of limited government, rule of law, separation of powers, fundamental rights as constraints on state power)
  • Part (b): Constitutionalism as 'limited government under Fundamental Law'—reference to Kesavananda (1973) basic structure doctrine, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), and Minerva Mills (1980) showing how judicial review enforces constitutional limits
  • Part (c): President-Council of Ministers relationship under parliamentary system—Article 74 (aid and advice binding), Article 75 (collective responsibility), Article 78 (duties of PM to inform President); contrast nominal executive with real executive
  • Part (c): Constitutional provisions with case law—Samsher Singh (1974) on President acting on ministerial advice, Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) on parliamentary sovereignty, and 42nd/44th Amendment context showing shift from President's personal discretion to constitutional obligation

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10For (a): correctly cites Articles 32 and 226 as PIL vehicles; for (b): precisely quotes Article 368 and distinguishes from unwritten constitutional conventions; for (c): accurately reproduces Articles 74(1), 75(2)-(3), 78 with constitutional amendment numbers (42nd, 43rd, 44th) and their specific impacts on presidential powersMentions some articles correctly but confuses amendment numbers or misstates Article 74's binding nature; omits key provisions like Article 78 or mischaracterizes 42nd Amendment's effect on presidential discretionFundamental errors like stating President has discretionary powers under Article 74, confusing Article 368 with Article 352, or omitting constitutional provisions entirely; invents non-existent articles
Case-law citation20%10For (a): cites S.P. Gupta (1981) as PIL foundation, M.C. Mehta (1986) for continuing mandamus, Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984), Sheela Barse (1983); for (b): Kesavananda (1973), Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills (1980); for (c): Samsher Singh (1974), Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955), with correct facts and ratioCites some landmark cases but with inaccurate years or confused facts; mentions PIL cases without distinguishing their specific contributions; omits either Kesavananda or Samsher SinghNo case citations or entirely wrong case names (e.g., 'Keshavanand' misspelled consistently, 'Samsher Singh' confused with 'Shamsher Singh' facts); cites criminal law cases for constitutional questions
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): analyzes epistolary jurisdiction, continuing mandamus, and suo motu powers as doctrinal innovations; for (b): explains 'limited government' through rule of law, separation of powers, and basic structure as enforceable constraints; for (c): unpacks 'aid and advice' doctrine, collective responsibility, and the nominal-real executive distinction with theoretical coherenceDescribes doctrines superficially without analyzing their interconnection; mentions basic structure without explaining its constitutionalism function; conflates collective responsibility with individual responsibilityNo doctrinal depth—merely lists case outcomes without principles; fails to distinguish between constitutional text and constitutional practice; confuses parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): contrasts Indian PIL with US public interest standing and UK representative standing; for (b): compares Indian constitutionalism with UK (parliamentary sovereignty without written constitution) and US (written constitution with judicial supremacy); for (c): contrasts Indian parliamentary executive with British (conventions) and French (dual executive) modelsMakes passing reference to foreign comparisons without systematic analysis; mentions UK parliamentary system without distinguishing conventions from constitutional law; no global perspective on PILNo comparative dimension; treats Indian constitutional arrangements as unique without contextualization; confuses presidential systems with parliamentary systems
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes all three parts into coherent thesis on constitutional governance—how PIL extends constitutionalism's promise of limited government through judicial access, how presidential-Council relationship embodies parliamentary constitutionalism, with contemporary relevance (recent PIL trends, 2019 constitutional amendments, presidential activism debates)Separate conclusions for each part without integration; generic closing statement on constitution's importance; no contemporary application or forward-looking perspectiveNo conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely repeats question; contradicts earlier analysis or introduces new unsubstantiated claims

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