Q1
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Where does the Constitution of India vest executive power with respect to subject-matters in the Concurrent List over which both the Union and States have legislative powers? Explain. (10 marks) (b) "It is often said that the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India (1997) has defeated the very raison d'être of establishing administrative tribunals in India." Discuss. (10 marks) (c) Critically examine, with the help of decided cases, the power of the President to consult the Supreme Court. (10 marks) (d) If Article 21 confers on a person the right to live a dignified life, does it also include a right not to live? Examine the Constitutional Provisions with the help of decided case laws. (10 marks) (e) "The doctrine of Separation of Powers in its classical structural form is not followed in any country." Critically evaluate this statement with reasons. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए: (a) समवर्ती सूची के ऐसे विषय-वस्तु, जिन पर संघ और राज्य दोनों के पास विधि बनाने की शक्ति है, वहाँ भारत का संविधान कार्यपालिका शक्ति किसमें निहित करता है? व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) "यह प्रायः कहा जाता है कि उच्चतम न्यायालय ने एल. चन्द्र कुमार बनाम भारत संघ (1997) के निर्णय से प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरणों की स्थापना के लिए रेज़ोन डेट्र (वास्तविक कारणों) को व्यर्थ कर दिया है।" विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) उच्चतम न्यायालय से परामर्श करने की राष्ट्रपति की शक्ति का निर्णीत वादों की सहायता से आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) यदि अनुच्छेद 21, व्यक्ति को गरिमायुक्त जीवन जीने का अधिकार प्रदान करता है, तो क्या यह जीवित नहीं रहने का अधिकार भी सम्मिलित करता है? संविधानिक उपबंधों का परीक्षण विभिन्नीत वादों की सहायता से कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) "शक्ति-पृथक्करण का सिद्धांत इसके श्रेष्ठ स्वरूप (ढाँचे के रूप) में किसी भी देश में लागू नहीं है।" इस कथन का कारणों सहित आलोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (10 अंक)
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
This multi-part question requires critical examination across five constitutional law themes. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words total), spending roughly equal time on each since all carry 10 marks. Structure each part as: precise constitutional provision → relevant case law → critical analysis → brief conclusion. For (a), focus on Article 73 vs. Article 162; for (b), balance tribunal autonomy with judicial review; for (c), contrast advisory opinions with binding precedents; for (d), navigate the right to die debate; for (e), contrast Montesquieu's pure separation with India's integrated model.
Key points expected
- (a) Article 73(1)(a) vests executive power in Union for Concurrent List subjects; Article 162 limits State executive power to State List; Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) establishes Union supremacy in concurrent executive matters
- (b) L. Chandra Kumar (1997) held judicial review under Articles 32/226/227 as basic structure; tribunal decisions subject to High Court scrutiny; balances tribunal expertise against constitutional safeguards
- (c) Article 143 advisory jurisdiction; President may refer 'question of law' or 'fact of public importance'; In re Kerala Education Bill (1957), In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1992); opinions not binding
- (d) Article 21's 'right to life' includes dignity but not 'right to die'; Gian Kaur (1996) rejects euthanasia; Aruna Shanbaug (2011) permits passive euthanasia; Common Cause (2018) recognizes living will for passive euthanasia
- (e) Classical separation (Montesquieu) vs. functional separation; US strict separation vs. UK parliamentary fusion; India: integrated judiciary, executive-legislative overlap, limited separation under basic structure
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precisely cites Articles 73, 162, 143, 21 with correct clauses; accurately distinguishes Seventh List distributions; for (e), references Kesavananda's basic structure doctrine | Identifies correct articles but with clause errors or omissions; conflates legislative and executive powers in (a); vague on Article 143 scope in (c) | Misstates articles (e.g., Article 72 for 143); confers binding status on advisory opinions; omits key constitutional provisions entirely |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | Names Ram Jawaya Kapur, L. Chandra Kumar with correct years; cites In re Kerala Education Bill, Aruna Shanbaug, Common Cause, Gian Kaur; for (e) references Indira Nehru Gandhi, Kesavananda | Cites major cases with year errors; misses Aruna Shanbaug or Common Cause in (d); omits In re precedents in (c) | Fabricates case names or years; cites irrelevant cases (e.g., Golak Nath for separation of powers); no case law for (b), (c), or (d) |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | Explains 'basic structure' limitation on tribunal ouster; analyzes 'right to die' vs. 'right to dignity' tension; critiques Montesquieu's rigidity; evaluates functional separation in Indian context | Describes tribunal purpose without analyzing Chandra Kumar's impact; states positions without doctrinal depth; superficial treatment of separation models | No doctrinal engagement—purely descriptive; fails to explain why classical separation failed; conflates 'right to die' with suicide without constitutional analysis |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | Contrasts US Article III courts with Indian tribunals; compares UK parliamentary sovereignty with Indian judicial review; references foreign advisory opinion models (Canada, South Africa) | Mentions US/UK separation models without specificity; limited comparative framework; no reference to global administrative tribunal trends | No comparative dimension; treats Indian system as unique without context; confuses presidential systems with parliamentary models |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes that Chandra Kumar preserved tribunals with judicial oversight; concludes Article 21's dignity rationale permits only passive euthanasia; evaluates separation as 'checks and balances' not watertight compartments | Restates positions without synthesis; weak conclusions per sub-part; fails to connect tribunal autonomy with access to justice | No conclusions or abrupt endings; contradictory final positions; missing conclusions for 2+ sub-parts |
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 2025 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Where does the Constitution of India vest executive power with respect to subje…
- Q2 (a) What are the powers, privileges and immunities of Houses of Parliament in India? Do they have the power to expel any of their members f…
- Q3 (a) "In any democratic society, judicial review of administrative action is the soul of the system. Without it, democracy, and rule of law…
- Q4 (a) Examine the power of the Governor to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit or commute th…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Is anticipatory and pre-emptive use of force for self-defence permissible under…
- Q6 (a) There may be various reasons for the failure of the Security Council of United Nations in maintaining international peace and order. On…
- Q7 (a) Examine the definition, meaning of 'Nationality' and modes of acquisition of nationality. Also, make a distinction between Nationality…
- Q8 (a) Critically examine the International Law relating to development and use of nuclear weapons with special focus on the Treaty on Prohibi…