Law 2025 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q3

(a) "In any democratic society, judicial review of administrative action is the soul of the system. Without it, democracy, and rule of law cannot be maintained." Explain with example. (20 marks) (b) Examine the provisions under the Indian Constitution that authorize the Parliament to legislate on the subject-matters of the State List of the Seventh Schedule. (15 marks) (c) "It is significant that the State shall secure the operation of legal system to promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity." Examine the provisions under the Constitution and Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "किसी भी लोकतांत्रिक समाज में, प्रशासनिक कार्यवाही का न्यायिक पुनर्विलोकन, व्यवस्था की आत्मा है। इसके बिना लोकतंत्र तथा विधि का शासन बनाए नहीं रखा जा सकता है!" उदाहरण सहित समझाइए। (20 अंक) (b) भारतीय संविधान के अंतर्गत उन उपबंधों का परीक्षण कीजिए, जो संसद को सातवीं अनुसूची की राज्य सूची की विषय-वस्तु पर विधि बनाने के लिए अधिकृत करते हैं। (15 अंक) (c) "यह महत्वपूर्ण है कि राज्य यह सुनिश्चित करेगा कि विधिक तंत्र इस प्रकार काम करे कि समान अवसर के आधार पर न्याय सुलभ हो।" संविधान और विधिक सेवा प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 1987 के अंतर्गत उपबंधों का परीक्षण कीजिए। (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' for part (a) requires demonstrating how judicial review sustains democracy with concrete examples, while 'examine' for (b) and (c) demands critical analysis of constitutional provisions and statutory schemes. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction linking rule of law to all three parts; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with constitutional articles, case laws, and statutory provisions; conclusion synthesizing how judicial review, parliamentary federal flexibility, and legal aid collectively strengthen constitutional democracy.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Judicial review as basic structure (Kesavananda, L. Chandra Kumar); grounds of review (Wednesbury unreasonableness, proportionality); examples like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (passport impounding) or Vineet Narain (CBI autonomy) showing review preventing executive arbitrariness
  • Part (b): Article 249 (Rajya Sabha resolution), Article 250 (national emergency), Article 252 (inter-state agreement), Article 253 (treaty implementation), Article 356 (President's Rule); limitations and federal tensions
  • Part (c): Article 39A (Directive Principle for free legal aid); Sections 12-13 of LSA Act 1987 (entitlement criteria); Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats under Sections 19-22; NALSA and SLSA institutional framework
  • Interconnection: How judicial review (a) enables enforcement of legal aid rights (c), while parliamentary powers (b) must respect federal balance reviewed by courts
  • Contemporary relevance: Recent Supreme Court orders on legal aid during COVID-19, or judicial pushback on Article 356 impositions (S.R. Bommai), demonstrating living constitutionalism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Articles 32, 136, 226, 227 for judicial review; Articles 249, 250, 252, 253, 356 for parliamentary powers; Article 39A and specific LSA Act sections (12, 13, 19-22) with correct statutory languageMentions correct articles but with numbering errors or conflates similar provisions (e.g., Article 252 with 253); vague reference to 'LSA Act provisions' without specificityIncorrect article numbers, confuses fundamental rights with directive principles, or omits statutory sections entirely
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Kesavananda, L. Chandra Kumar, S.P. Gupta, Vineet Narain; for (b): S.R. Bommai, Karnataka v. Union; for (c): Hussainara Khatoon, Sheela Barse—demonstrating doctrinal evolution and contemporary applicationCites landmark cases correctly but misses later developments (e.g., only Kesavananda without L. Chandra Kumar on tribunals); or cites cases without connecting to specific legal propositionsNo case citations, or incorrect attribution (e.g., Golak Nath for judicial review of administrative action)
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Explains Wednesbury, proportionality, and Indian 'manifest arbitrariness' test; for (b): Analyzes 'national interest' limitation in Article 249 and 'consent' requirement in Article 252; for (c): Distinguishes legal aid as enforceable right vs. directive principleLists grounds of review without explaining their application; describes parliamentary powers procedurally without analyzing federalism implications; treats legal aid as charity rather than rightConflates judicial review with appeal, treats all parliamentary powers identically without distinction, or fails to identify Article 39A as constitutional basis
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Contrasts Indian 'basic structure' review with UK parliamentary sovereignty or US Marbury v. Madison; for (b): Compares with German 'federal breach' or Australian referral powers; for (c): References international legal aid standards (UN Principles and Guidelines)Mentions federalism or separation of powers generally without comparative depth; or makes passing reference to foreign systems without analytical purposeNo comparative element, or irrelevant comparisons (e.g., discussing criminal procedure when question is on administrative law)
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes how judicial review, conditional parliamentary supremacy, and legal aid access form interlocking mechanisms for substantive democracy; addresses contemporary challenges (tribunalization diluting Article 32/226, COVID-19 legal aid crisis, cooperative federalism tensions)Summarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on importance of rule of law without specific contemporary resonanceNo conclusion, or abrupt ending; or conclusion contradicts body (e.g., asserting absolute parliamentary sovereignty after discussing basic structure)

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