Law 2025 Paper I 50 marks Examine

Q4

(a) Examine the power of the Governor to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends. (20 marks) (b) What are the significant changes introduced by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 to emergency provisions contained in Part XVIII of the Constitution of India? Are they efficacious enough to prevent the possible abuse of power under Article 352 of the Constitution? Elaborate. (15 marks) (c) "Lokpal and Lokayukta have roots in Indian governance culture." Explain, how the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 ensures transparency and accountability in public governance, both within and outside India. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) राज्यपाल को जिस विषय पर उस राज्य की कार्यपालिका शक्ति का विस्तार है, किसी विधि के विरुद्ध किसी अपराध के लिए सिद्धदोष ठहराए गए किसी व्यक्ति के दंड को क्षमा, उसका प्रतिबंधन, विराम या परिहार करने की अथवा दंडादेश में निलंबन, परिहार या लघुकरण की शक्ति का परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) संविधान के (चवालीसवें संशोधन) अधिनियम, 1978 द्वारा भारत के संविधान के भाग XVIII में सम्मिलित आपातकालीन प्रावधानों में कौन-से महत्वपूर्ण परिवर्तन किए गए हैं? क्या ये संविधान के अनुच्छेद 352 के अंतर्गत संभावित दुरुपयोग को रोकने के लिए पर्याप्त हैं? विस्तार से समझाइए। (15 अंक) (c) "लोकपाल और लोकायुक्त की नींव भारतीय शासन की संस्कृति में है।" व्याख्या कीजिए कि लोकपाल और लोकायुक्त अधिनियम, 2013, लोक प्रशासन में पारदर्शिता और उत्तरदायित्व, भारत और भारत के बाहर दोनों में सुनिश्चित कैसे करता है। (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to 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

The directive 'examine' for part (a) requires critical analysis of the Governor's pardoning power with judicial interpretation; parts (b) and (c) use 'elaborate' and 'explain' respectively, demanding detailed exposition. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with ~30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: introduction acknowledging constitutional scheme of mercy jurisdiction; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with constitutional provisions, amendments, and statutory framework; conclusion synthesizing how these mechanisms collectively strengthen constitutional governance and suggesting reforms.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Article 161 scope and limitations; distinction from President's Article 72 power; judicial review parameters post-Maruram v. Union of India and Epuru Sudhakar cases; distinction between pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, suspension, commutation
  • Part (a): Governor's power vis-à-vis death penalty cases; conflict with Centre in concurrent jurisdiction; 2015 Supreme Court guidelines on mercy petition disposal timelines
  • Part (b): 44th Amendment changes to Articles 352, 358, 359; 'armed rebellion' replacing 'internal disturbance'; written recommendation of Cabinet vs. Prime Minister; cessation of proclamation by resolution; protection of Articles 20 and 21 during emergency
  • Part (b): Critical assessment of efficacy—procedural safeguards vs. potential abuse; comparison with 1975-77 Emergency experience; remaining vulnerabilities in Article 352
  • Part (c): Historical antecedents—Lokayukta in ancient Indian texts (Arthashastra, Rigveda), First ARC 1966, Administrative Reforms Commission; 2013 Act provisions on jurisdiction, appointment, prosecution wing
  • Part (c): Transparency mechanisms—public disclosure of complaints, annual reports, search committee composition; international dimension—UN Convention Against Corruption alignment, India's ranking improvement in Transparency International indices; limitations and 2014 amendment issues

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Articles 72, 161, 352, 358, 359, 356; accurate reference to Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 sections (14, 15, 20, 27); correct distinction between 42nd and 44th Amendments; no conflation of Governor's and President's powersGenerally correct article numbers with minor errors; broad awareness of 44th Amendment changes without specific section details; basic understanding of Lokpal Act provisionsConfusion between Articles 352 and 356; misstating 44th Amendment as 42nd; incorrect provisions on Lokpal jurisdiction; fundamental errors in constitutional scheme
Case-law citation20%10Maruram v. Union of India (1980), Epuru Sudhakar v. State of A.P. (2006), Swaran Singh case (Governor's pardon), S.R. Bommai (emergency context), Vineet Narain (Lokpal precursor), PUCL v. Union of India (2015 mercy petition guidelines); accurate facts and ratioMention of landmark cases without accurate facts or legal principles; missing recent judgments like PUCL 2015; conflation of similar casesNo case law or incorrect case names; fictional citations; complete absence of judicial precedents where essential
Doctrinal analysis20%10Rigorous analysis of 'pleasure' theory vs. rule of law; separation of powers in mercy jurisdiction; federal tension in part (a); 'constitutional autochthony' in emergency provisions; Ombudsman theory applied to Lokpal; critical evaluation of 44th Amendment's sufficiencyDescriptive coverage of doctrines without critical application; superficial engagement with constitutional theory; limited analysis of why 44th Amendment may/may not prevent abusePurely descriptive with no doctrinal framework; no engagement with constitutional values; failure to critically assess efficacy as demanded in part (b)
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Comparative reference to Governor-General's prerogative of mercy in UK; American clemency powers; Scandinavian Ombudsman models; UNCAC alignment of Lokpal; post-2014 amendment comparison with state Lokayuktas (Karnataka, Delhi); international best practices in transparencyBrief mention of foreign models without elaboration; limited comparison between Centre and state Lokayuktas; no international dimensionNo comparative or international perspective; isolated treatment of Indian provisions; failure to address 'both within and outside India' as specified in part (c)
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesized conclusion linking all three parts to constitutional governance; specific reform suggestions (time-bound disposal, judicial review expansion, Lokpal autonomy); balanced assessment of 44th Amendment's adequacy; forward-looking observations on anti-corruption architectureGeneric conclusion restating main points; limited reform suggestions; no integration across sub-partsNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely summary without critical forward look; missing response to 'efficacy' and 'roots in Indian governance culture' aspects

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