Law 2024 Paper I 50 marks Elaborate

Q4

(a) In recent years, the concept of 'Cooperative Federalism' has played a pivotal role in constitutional governance of the nation but at the same time it comes across various challenges as well. Elaborate. (20 marks) (b) "The Fundamental Rights are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end. The end is specified in the Directive Principles." Analyze the statement. (15 marks) (c) "The ordinance making power of the President and the Governors is a unique feature of the Indian Constitution but it balances on a razor-sharp edge between pragmatic governance and potential over-reach." Critically examine with the help of decided case laws. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) हाल के वर्षों में 'सहकारी संघवाद' की अवधारणा ने राष्ट्र के संवैधानिक शासन में महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई है, परन्तु साथ ही इसे विभिन्न चुनौतियों का भी सामना करना पड़ा है। विस्तारित कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "मूलभूत अधिकार अपने आप में साध्य नहीं हैं, बल्कि साध्य के साधन के रूप में हैं। साध्य निर्देशक तत्त्वों में विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है।" उक्त कथन का विश्लेषण कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) "राष्ट्रपति तथा राज्यपालों की अध्यादेश जारी करने की शक्ति भारतीय संविधान की एक अनन्य विशेषता है, लेकिन यह व्यावहारिक शासन तथा संभावित अतिसंविधान के बीच धारदार संतुलन पर टिकी हुई है।" निर्णीत वाद विधि की सहायता से आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण 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 question demands elaboration across three distinct constitutional themes. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, with ~30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction on constitutional philosophy; body addressing each part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing how these three mechanisms collectively serve constitutional governance. For (a), balance cooperative mechanisms with challenges; for (b), use judicial pronouncements on FR-DPSP harmony; for (c), emphasize critical examination through landmark ordinances cases.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Cooperative federalism mechanisms—GST Council, NITI Aayog, Inter-State Council, Zonal Councils; challenges—GST compensation disputes, NEET/NEP centralization, Article 356 misuse, fiscal asymmetry, competitive vs. cooperative tension
  • Part (a): Recent developments—COVID-19 coordination, PM-KISAN, Ayushman Bharat as cooperative models; judicial interventions in S.R. Bommai, State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
  • Part (b): FR-DPSP relationship—Minerva Mills, Kesavananda Bharati, Golak Nath; transformation from subordinate to complementary status post-1971 amendments; judicial balancing through harmonious construction
  • Part (b): Specific illustrations—Articles 39(b)-(c) with Article 31C; right to education (Article 21A) as synthesis; Unni Krishnan, Mohini Jain showing DPSP as 'moral mandate' giving content to FRs
  • Part (c): Constitutional basis—Articles 123 and 213; limitations—legislative approval, repromulgation prohibition, judicial review; RC Cooper, D.C. Wadhwa, Krishna Kumar Singh cases
  • Part (c): Critical examination—pragmatic necessity vs. democratic deficit; 7.5th Pay Commission ordinance, farm laws ordinance controversy; Supreme Court's 7-judge bench in Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) on re-promulgation as fraud on Constitution

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Articles 123, 213, 263, 280, 356; accurate reference to 42nd, 44th, 73rd, 74th, 101st Amendments; correct mention of Schedule VII lists and their interplay in cooperative federalism; for (b), exact Articles 36-51 with specific DPSP-FR pairingsGeneral mention of constitutional provisions with minor errors in article numbers; conflation of President/ Governor ordinance powers; vague reference to 'federal provisions' without specificityIncorrect article citations (e.g., Article 352 for 356); confusion between DPSP and FR chapters; omission of 101st Amendment for GST; fundamental misunderstanding of ordinance-making procedure
Case-law citation20%10For (a): S.R. Bommai (1994), State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), T.M.A. Pai Foundation; for (b): Minerva Mills (1980), Kesavananda (1973), Unni Krishnan (1993), Mohini Jain (1992); for (c): RC Cooper (1970), D.C. Wadhwa (1987), Krishna Kumar Singh (2017), A.K. Roy (1982)Mention of landmark cases without precise ratio or year; conflation of similar cases (e.g., Golak Nath with Kesavananda); missing recent precedents like Krishna Kumar SinghNo case law or invented cases; incorrect attribution of judgments (e.g., attributing Minerva Mills to Golak Nath bench); failure to cite any authority for ordinance power limitations
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): 'Cooperative federalism' vs. 'competitive federalism' doctrinal distinction; for (b): 'harmonious construction' doctrine, 'transformative constitutionalism', post-1971 'balance theory'; for (c): 'fraud on Constitution' doctrine, 'conditional legislation' vs. 'delegated legislation' distinction, separation of powers implicationsDescriptive treatment without doctrinal depth; mentions 'basic structure' without explaining its relevance to each part; superficial treatment of federalism modelsNo doctrinal framework; purely narrative description; confusion between judicial review doctrines and constitutional interpretation methods; failure to identify any theoretical underpinning
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Comparison with German cooperative federalism, Australian model, Canadian 'cooperative federalism' in Reference Re Secession; for (b): Irish DPSP influence, South African transformative constitutionalism; for (c): US 'executive orders' absence, British ordinance precedents, Pakistani Article 89 comparison; critical assessment of Indian exceptionalismBrief mention of foreign constitutions without substantive comparison; generic reference to 'other federal countries'; no critical assessment of Indian uniquenessNo comparative dimension; parochial treatment assuming Indian constitutional features are universal; confusion between parliamentary and presidential systems in comparison
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesized conclusion connecting all three parts to 'living constitution' theme; contemporary applications—GST Council functioning post-2022, recent ordinances (2023-2024); forward-looking recommendations—inter-state trade facilitation, DPSP justiciability debate, ordinance reform; balanced critical stance acknowledging both necessity and abuseSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic recommendations without specificity; dated or hypothetical examples lacking contemporary relevanceNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive ending without analysis; partisan stance (wholly pro or anti-government) without constitutional balance; irrelevant personal opinions

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