Law 2025 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

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 for breach of privileges? If so, are such expulsions subject to judicial review? Discuss. (20 marks) (b) "The Directive Principles of State Policy are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these Principles in making laws." Illustrate the legislations, which have been enacted for the implementation of Directive Principles. (15 marks) (c) "It was claimed in the Constituent Assembly that the Constitution of India has in fact, laid down a very 'facile' procedure for the amendment of the Constitution." Do you think the Doctrine of Basic Structure significantly limits the amending power under Article 368? Elucidate. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारत में संसद के सदनों की शक्तियाँ, विशेषाधिकार और उन्मुक्तियाँ क्या हैं? क्या विशेषाधिकार के उल्लंघन में उन्हें अपने सदस्यों को निष्कासित करने की शक्ति है? यदि ऐसा है, तो क्या ऐसे निष्कासन न्यायिक पुनर्विलोकन के अधीन हैं? विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "राज्य की नीति के निदेशक तत्व देश के शासन में मूलभूत हैं और विधि बनाने में इन तत्वों को लागू करना राज्य का कर्तव्य है!" निदेशक तत्वों को लागू करने में जिन विधियों को अधिनियमित किया गया है, उनका उदाहरण दीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) "संविधान सभा में यह दावा किया गया कि भारत के संविधान में, वास्तव में संविधान संशोधन के लिए एक बहुत ही 'सुगम' प्रक्रिया निर्धारित की गई है!" क्या आपको लगता है कि मूल ढाँचे का सिद्धांत अनुच्छेद 368 के अंतर्गत संशोधन शक्ति को काफी हद तक सीमित करता है? विशदीकरण कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Law questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' demands a balanced, analytical treatment with arguments for and against. Structure: Introduction defining parliamentary privileges, DPSP, and amendment procedure; Body—spend ~40% on part (a) covering Article 105, expulsion power (Raja Ram Pal case) and judicial review (Keshavananda, Jairam Das); ~30% on part (b) quoting Article 37 and illustrating with MGNREGA, RTE, Forest Rights Act; ~30% on part (c) analyzing 'facile' claim (Gopalan) vs Basic Structure limitation (Kesavananda, Minerva Mills, NJAC); Conclusion synthesizing how these doctrines maintain constitutional balance.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Article 105(3) privileges, freedom of speech, publication under parliamentary authority; expulsion power affirmed in Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker (2007) but limited by Kihoto Hollohan (intra vires judicial review)
  • Part (a): Judicial review scope—Keshavananda (Basic Structure applies), Jairam Das v. State (expulsion procedural fairness), PV Narasimha Rao v. State (bribery and parliamentary immunity)
  • Part (b): Article 37 non-justiciability vs fundamental in governance; illustrate with MGNREGA (Article 41), RTE Act 2009 (Article 45), Forest Rights Act 2006 (Article 46), Equal Remuneration Act (Article 39(d))
  • Part (c): Constituent Assembly 'facile' claim—Article 368 original simplicity; Gopalan (no implied limitations) overruled by Kesavananda (Basic Structure doctrine)
  • Part (c): Basic Structure limitations—judicial review, federalism, secularism, rule of law (Waman Rao, Minerva Mills, S.R. Bommai); Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (Article 329A struck down)
  • Part (c): NJAC 2014 amendment struck down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (2015) as violating Basic Structure of judicial independence

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Article 105(3), Article 37, Article 368 with sub-clauses; accurate reproduction of constitutional text for privileges, DPSP duty, and amendment procedure; correct identification of Schedule entries where relevantMentions correct articles but misses sub-clauses or conflates Article 105 with Article 194; vague reference to 'constitutional provisions' without specificityWrong articles cited (e.g., Article 19 for privileges), confuses DPSP with Fundamental Rights, or omits constitutional basis entirely
Case-law citation20%10Accurate citation of Raja Ram Pal (2007), Keshavananda (1973), Minerva Mills (1980), NJAC (2015), PV Narasimha Rao (1998), Waman Rao (1981); correct facts and ratio for eachNames major cases but misstates facts or ratio; misses Raja Ram Pal on expulsion or conflates Kesavananda with Golak NathNo case law cited, or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., A.K. Gopalan for Basic Structure); incorrect bench strength or year mentioned
Doctrinal analysis20%10Clear exposition of privilege doctrine (collective vs individual), DPSP as 'moral mandate' with transformative potential, Basic Structure as 'implied limitation' theory; traces evolution from Gopalan to Kesavananda to post-1980 developmentsDescribes doctrines superficially without interconnection; misses 'facile procedure' debate or treats Basic Structure as absolute without nuanceConfuses doctrines (e.g., treats DPSP as justiciable), no historical evolution traced, or presents Basic Structure as explicitly in Article 368
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Compares Indian parliamentary privileges with UK (Bill of Rights 1689) and US (Speech or Debate Clause); contrasts DPSP with Irish Constitution; references 'controlled' vs 'rigid' constitution classification; notes 42nd Amendment experienceBrief mention of UK comparison without specificity; no reference to Irish origin of DPSP or constitutional amendment typologyNo comparative element; purely descriptive treatment without situating Indian provisions in global constitutionalism
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes how parliamentary privileges, DPSP, and Basic Structure collectively ensure responsible governance; addresses contemporary relevance (fake news, social welfare gaps, amendment debates); balanced view on judicial-legislative tensionGeneric conclusion restating points; no contemporary application or fails to connect the three parts thematicallyNo conclusion, or abrupt ending; one-sided view (e.g., judiciary usurping power without nuance); no integration of 50-mark question 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