UPSC Law 2026 — Paper I

(a) 'Elucidate' requires the candidate to explain and illustrate, not merely define: state the doctrine of pleasure as embodied in Article 310(1) and then demonstrate, through Article 311 and case law, that its operation in India is hedged in by constitutional restrictions, so that the absolute English form does not survive here. (b) 'Critically evaluate' demands both support and challenge: establish that judicial review of legislation and of administrative action is a basic feature without which the Constitution loses its identity, and then weigh the counter-arguments (counter-majoritarian objection, judicial overreach) before taking a reasoned position. (c) Two distinct limbs must both be answered: (i) explain what the legislative process is — the stages by which a Bill becomes an Act under Articles 107 to 111; and (ii) explain the specific power in Article 246(4) by which Parliament may legislate on any matter in any List for any part of the territory of India not included in a State, i.e. for Union Territories. (d) 'Examine in the light of exceptions, if any' requires the candidate to verify the proposition against Article 36, agree that the definition is carried over from Article 12, and then identify the qualifications: the opening words 'unless the context otherwise requires', the inclusive and judicially expanded meaning of 'other authorities', the contested position of the judiciary, and the fact that Article 36 operates only within Part IV. (e) Two limbs: (i) explain the indirect mode of the President's election — the composition of the electoral college under Article 54, the uniformity and proportionality scheme under Article 55, and the method of a single transferable vote by secret ballot; and (ii) discuss who decides election disputes, which is the Supreme Court under Article 71(1), with the consequences in Article 71(2)-(4) and the statute made under Article 71(3).

• Article 310(1) and the opening words 'Except as expressly provided by this Constitution'
• Article 311(1), 311(2) and 311(3)
• The three provisos to Article 311(2)
• Deletion of the second show-cause notice by the 42nd Amendment, 1976
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398
• Articles 124(4), 148(1), 218 and 324(5) as exclusions
• Textual bases: Articles 13, 32, 136 and 226/227; legislative competence (Articles 245-246) and Part III as grounds for review of legislation
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 — basic structure
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261
• Review of administrative action through the writs under Articles 32 and 226
• Counter-majoritarian difficulty / judicial overreach as the critical side
• Article 107 (ordinary Bills) and Article 108 (joint sitting)
• Articles 109 and 110 (Money Bills), Article 117 (Financial Bills)
• Article 111 (assent of the President)
• Article 245 and Article 246, with Article 246(4) stated correctly
• Seventh Schedule — Union, State and Concurrent Lists
• Articles 239, 239A, 239AA and 240 on Union Territories
• Article 36 and its opening words 'In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires'
• Article 12 and its inclusive definition, including 'other authorities'
• Article 37 (Part IV not enforceable but fundamental in governance)
• Judicial expansion of 'other authorities' (e.g. Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. IICB, (2002) 5 SCC 111)
• The judiciary question — Mirajkar and Rupa Ashok Hurra
• Article 54 — electoral college of elected MPs and elected MLAs
• 70th Amendment, 1992 — Delhi and Puducherry Assemblies included
• Article 55 — uniformity and parity; value of vote formula; 1971 census (84th Amendment, 2001)
• Single transferable vote, proportional representation, secret ballot
• Article 71(1) — Supreme Court decides, decision final
• Article 71(2) — acts done before the declaration not invalidated
• Article 71(3) and the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952
• Article 71(4) (11th Amendment, 1961) — vacancy in the electoral college no ground

(a) The candidate must trace, through leading cases, how the Supreme Court moved from 'procedure established by law' to a requirement of fair, just and reasonable procedure — effectively importing due process — and must then show the resulting expansion of Article 21 into a reservoir of substantive rights. The instruction 'support your answer with the help of leading case laws' makes correct case names, years and holdings the core of the marking. (b) 'Discuss' the proposition that constitutionalism means limited government and is the antithesis of arbitrary power: define the concept and its theoretical sources, distinguish a constitution from constitutionalism, identify the devices through which the Indian Constitution institutionalises limitation, and test the claim against episodes where constitutionalism failed. (c) 'Elaborate with the help of relevant case laws' requires the candidate to explain the doctrine that essential legislative functions — laying down policy and standards — cannot be delegated, that the delegate may only fill in details to advance the declared policy, and to prove this through the Indian line of authority beginning with In re Delhi Laws Act.

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
• R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 — 'right, just and fair'
• Golden triangle of Articles 14, 19 and 21
• Francis Coralie Mullin (1981); Olga Tellis (1985); Hussainara Khatoon (1979-80)
• Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 and the proportionality test
• 44th Amendment, 1978 — Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable under Article 359(1)
• C.H. McIlwain and Carl J. Friedrich on constitutionalism
• A.V. Dicey — rule of law; Montesquieu — separation of powers
• Constitution without constitutionalism; Loewenstein's normative/nominal/semantic typology
• Part III with Articles 32 and 226; judicial review; federalism; independent judiciary
• E.P. Royappa, (1974) 4 SCC 3 — arbitrariness is antithetic to equality
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980) — basic structure as limitation
• The 1975-77 Emergency and ADM Jabalpur as the counter-illustration
• In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912, AIR 1951 SC 332 — essential legislative function
• Policy and guideline test; abdication test (Gwalior Rayon, (1974) 4 SCC 98)
• Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554
• Harishankar Bagla v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 465
• Conditional legislation distinguished from delegated legislation
• Controls: laying procedures, Committee on Subordinate Legislation, substantive and procedural ultra vires

(a) 'Examine with the help of relevant arguments' requires a reasoned comparison, not narration: state what Golaknath held, what Kesavananda held, and then argue specifically why Kesavananda represents an improvement — both doctrinally and in its policy consequences — while acknowledging the criticisms of judicial creativity that the basic structure doctrine invites. (b) 'Analyse with special reference to the Sixth Schedule' requires the candidate to define constitutional governance as limited, defined and structured authority, and then to demonstrate it through the concrete example of the Sixth Schedule — the Autonomous District and Regional Councils, their constitutionally defined legislative, judicial, executive and financial powers, and the constitutionally fixed checks upon them. (c) 'Explain' the proposition that natural justice has no fixed content: state the two core rules, then demonstrate with authority that what the rules require varies with the statutory framework, the nature of the inquiry, the subject matter and the consequences — including situations where the rules are curtailed or excluded altogether.

• Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965)
• I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 — 11 Judges, 6:5, prospective overruling, Entry 97 List I
• 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendments
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 — 13 Judges, 7:6, 24 April 1973
• Basic structure doctrine; 24th Amendment upheld; second limb of Article 31C struck down
• Minerva Mills (1980) — Article 368(4) and (5) struck down
• Why it is an improvement over Golaknath, and the criticisms of judicial creativity (no textual basis, indeterminacy, counter-majoritarian objection)
• Article 244(2) and Article 275(1)
• Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram as the four States covered
• Autonomous District Councils and Regional Councils; Paragraph 2 composition (not more than 30 members, up to 4 nominated)
• Paragraph 3 legislative subjects — land, forest other than reserved forest, jhum cultivation, inheritance, marriage and divorce, social customs
• Paragraph 3(3) — Governor's assent
• Paragraphs 4 and 5 — village courts and conferment of civil/criminal court powers
• Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 — District Fund, land revenue, taxes and mineral royalties
• Paragraph 14 Commission and Paragraph 16 dissolution/assumption by the Governor
• Nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem
• Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All ER 109 — Tucker L.J.'s formulation
• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
• Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 — post-decisional hearing
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 — exclusion by express provision or necessary implication

(a) 'Justify this statement supported by relevant constitutional provisions' requires the candidate to enumerate, Article by Article, the distinct jurisdictions the Supreme Court exercises — original, writ, appellate, advisory, review, and the special powers under Articles 141 and 142 — and then to argue, with comparison, why this aggregation makes it exceptionally powerful, while acknowledging the criticisms. (b) Two limbs. First, 'do you agree' and 'critically examine' the claim that the satisfaction for proclaiming an emergency is the President's and not the Cabinet's — requiring the candidate to take a position using Articles 352(3) and 74(1). Second, discuss the consequences of such a proclamation under Articles 353, 354, 358 and 359 and the extension of legislative terms. (c) 'Elucidate in Indian perspectives with the help of examples' requires the candidate to explain the Ombudsman as an institution created by and reporting to the legislature to supervise administration, trace the Indian attempt to create one, and give real Indian examples — the Lokpal, the State Lokayuktas and cognate grievance-redressal bodies — with a critical assessment of how far the Indian model matches the classical one.

• Article 131 — original jurisdiction; Article 32 — writ jurisdiction as a fundamental right
• Articles 132, 133, 134, 134A, 135 — appellate jurisdiction
• Article 136 — special leave to appeal, plenary and discretionary
• Article 143 — advisory jurisdiction, and the 143(1)/143(2) distinction
• Article 141 — law declared binding on all courts
• Article 142 — complete justice; Union Carbide (1991); SCBA v. Union of India (1998)
• Article 129 — court of record; Article 137 and the curative petition (Rupa Ashok Hurra, 2002)
• Basic structure review of constitutional amendments
• Comparison with the US Supreme Court and the UK Supreme Court
• Article 352(1) and the three grounds; 'armed rebellion' substituted by the 44th Amendment, 1978
• Article 352(3) — written communication of the Union Cabinet's decision
• Article 74(1) and its proviso (44th Amendment)
• Deletion of the 38th Amendment's ouster clause; S.R. Bommai (1994) on reviewability
• Article 352(4)-(8) — parliamentary approval, special majority, one month, six months, revocation
• Article 353 and Article 250 — Union directions and Parliament's power over the State List
• Article 354 — modification of revenue distribution
• Proviso to Article 83(2) and Article 172(1) — extension of legislative terms
• Article 358 (Article 19 suspended, war/external aggression only) and Article 359 (Articles 20 and 21 excepted)
• Sweden 1809 — Justitieombudsman; UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, 1967
• First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966) — Lokpal and Lokayukta recommendation
• Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (in force 16 January 2014)
• Composition: Chairperson and up to 8 Members, at least half judicial
• Selection Committee: PM, Speaker, Leader of Opposition, CJI or his nominee, eminent jurist
• Prime Minister within jurisdiction with subject-matter exclusions and procedural safeguards
• Section 63 — State Lokayuktas; Maharashtra 1971; Karnataka Lokayukta as an example
• Critical point: the Indian model is anti-corruption rather than maladministration-focused

(a) 'Examine' the classic jurisprudential controversy: state the Austinian denial that international law is law properly so called, marshal the arguments on both sides with named jurists and concrete evidence of law-like features, and reach a reasoned conclusion. (b) 'Critically examine the theories' requires the candidate to set out monism, dualism and the subsidiary theories of transformation, specific adoption, delegation and harmonisation, name their principal proponents, and then criticise each against State practice — including the Indian position. (c) Two limbs: define asylum and distinguish its territorial and extra-territorial forms; then answer the specific question whether an individual has a fundamental or enforceable right to asylum in another country — which requires the answer 'no', supported by Article 14 UDHR, the 1967 Declaration on Territorial Asylum and the Asylum Case, with the further point that asylum protects against persecution, not against ordinary prosecution. (d) Two limbs: explain precisely what the double veto is — the use of the veto first on the preliminary question whether a matter is procedural and then on the substance — grounding it in Article 27 of the UN Charter and the San Francisco Four-Power Statement; and then discuss its impact on United Nations decision-making, including the devices developed to work around it. (e) Three tasks: define State succession, define State recognition, and then differentiate them on stated criteria. The marks turn on the quality of the differentiation, so the answer must not stop at two definitions.

• Austin's command theory — international law as 'positive international morality'
• Affirmative view with named jurists — Oppenheim, Starke; Kelsen and pacta sunt servanda as the basic norm
• Law-like features: Article 38(1) ICJ Statute sources; Chapter VII and Article 94 of the UN Charter
• Weaknesses: no legislature, no compulsory jurisdiction (Article 36(2) optional clause), the veto
• Reasoned conclusion: law, though a 'weak' / horizontal, decentralised legal order
• Monism and its proponents (Kelsen, Lauterpacht, Scelle)
• Dualism and its proponents (Triepel, Anzilotti); difference in sources, subjects and substance
• Subsidiary theories: transformation / specific adoption, delegation, harmonisation
• Indian position: dualist for treaties (Articles 73, 253), incorporation for custom; Article 51(c)
• Critical evaluation of the theories against State practice
• Article 27 of the VCLT, 1969 on the international plane
• Definition; territorial versus extra-territorial / diplomatic asylum
• Article 14(1) and 14(2) UDHR — right to seek and enjoy, not to be granted
• Grant of asylum is the State's sovereign right — Declaration on Territorial Asylum, 1967
• Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), ICJ 1950
• 1951 Refugee Convention: non-refoulement (Article 33); Article 1F exclusions
• Asylum protects against persecution, not ordinary prosecution; fugitives are liable to extradition
• Conclusion: no fundamental right of an individual to be granted asylum
• Article 27 of the UN Charter: procedural matters (27(2)) and all other matters (27(3)); nine affirmative votes; concurring votes of the permanent members
• Meaning: veto on the preliminary question whether a matter is procedural, then veto on the substance
• San Francisco Four-Power Statement on Voting Procedure, 7 June 1945
• Abstention or absence is not a veto
• Impact: paralysis of the Council; workarounds — Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 (V), GA Resolution 76/262 (2022)
• Evaluation: great-power privilege; the veto in reform proposals
• Definition of State succession; Vienna Conventions of 1978 (treaties) and 1983 (property, archives and debts)
• Rules: clean slate, moving treaty frontier, survival of boundary / territorial treaties
• Definition of State recognition; Montevideo Convention, 1933, Article 1 criteria
• Constitutive versus declaratory theories; de jure and de facto recognition
• Express point-by-point differentiation

(a) 'Discuss the role of the principle of non-discrimination and free trade under GATT' in the context of a free-market world economic order: the candidate must explain the two limbs of non-discrimination (MFN and national treatment) with their Article numbers, the free-trade disciplines on tariffs and quantitative restrictions, the built-in exceptions, and must evaluate how far the system delivers on the premise, using dispute settlement practice. (b) Three limbs, all of which must be covered: (i) the grounds of intervention and its types; (ii) the circumstances in which force may lawfully be used in self-defence; and (iii) the limitations on that right. Precision about Article 2(4), Article 51 and the Caroline formula is what distinguishes a strong answer. (c) 'Explain' the quoted definition: identify it as J.G. Starke's definition of international law, unpack its component expressions — 'body of law', 'for its greater part', 'feel themselves bound', 'do commonly observe', 'relations with each other' — supply the two extensions Starke himself adds on international organisations and individuals, and assess the definition's adequacy against other definitions.

• GATT 1947 and its carry-forward as GATT 1994 under the WTO (1 January 1995)
• Article I — most-favoured-nation treatment
• Article III — national treatment
• Free-trade disciplines: Article II tariff bindings; Article XI quantitative restrictions
• Exceptions: Article XX (with the chapeau), XXI, XIX, VI, XXIV; Enabling Clause, 1979
• Evaluation through at least one dispute and the present challenges
• Definition of intervention; prohibition in Article 2(4) and Article 2(7) of the UN Charter
• Types: internal, external, punitive; individual / collective; subversive
• Grounds claimed and their legal status: Chapter VII authorisation, invitation, self-defence, protection of nationals, humanitarian intervention, R2P
• Article 51 — armed attack; individual and collective self-defence
• Caroline formula: necessity and proportionality (and immediacy)
• Limitations: reporting to the Security Council; right lasts until the Council acts; anticipatory self-defence and non-State actors disputed
• Identifies the definition as J.G. Starke's
• Explains key phrases: 'body of law', 'for its greater part', 'feel themselves bound', 'do commonly observe'
• Opinio juris and State practice as the two elements of custom; Article 38(1) ICJ Statute sources
• Starke's extension (a) — international organisations
• Starke's extension (b) — individuals and non-State entities
• Critical assessment: subjectivity / circularity; jus cogens and erga omnes; comparison with Oppenheim's definition

(a) Three tasks: state the facts and holdings of the Corfu Channel Case; extract the principles of the law of the sea it generated and relate them to the territorial sea and the contiguous zone; and give a reasoned opinion on how far the Strait of Hormuz problem can be resolved under UNCLOS 1982 in the light of passage rights by foreign vessels — which requires the candidate to notice that Hormuz is governed by transit passage under Part III, not merely innocent passage. (b) Three named elements must be covered — composition, powers and functions of the Security Council — all directed to the maintenance of international peace and security, which means Chapter VI and Chapter VII must be explained with their Article numbers, not merely listed. (c) Three tasks: define nationality in international law; state the various modes by which an individual acquires it; and differentiate nationality from domicile. Marks are distributed across all three, so none may be omitted.

• Facts: mining of 22 October 1946 in Albanian waters; Operation Retail, 12-13 November 1946
• Holdings: Albania responsible for failing to warn; passage of 22 October lawful; Operation Retail an unlawful intervention, self-help rejected
• Principle: warships may pass through straits used for international navigation without prior authorisation; innocent passage there cannot be suspended
• UNCLOS 1982: 12 nm territorial sea (Article 3), innocent passage (Articles 17-32), 24 nm contiguous zone (Article 33)
• Hormuz is governed by transit passage under Part III (Articles 37-44), not merely innocent passage
• Iran signed but has not ratified UNCLOS; customary status of transit passage
• Reasoned opinion on how far UNCLOS can resolve the problem
• Article 23: 15 members — 5 permanent, 10 non-permanent for two-year terms (since the 1963 amendment, in force 1965)
• Article 24 primary responsibility; Article 25 binding decisions
• Article 27 voting and the veto; abstention is not a veto
• Chapter VI (Articles 33-38) — recommendatory pacific settlement
• Chapter VII — Articles 39, 40, 41, 42; Article 43 agreements never concluded; Article 51
• Other functions: admission, Secretary-General, election of ICJ judges, enforcement of judgments, advisory opinions
• Peacekeeping, and the limits of the Council (veto, representativeness)
• Definition: legal bond between individual and State; basis of diplomatic protection
• Each State determines its nationals under its own law (Hague Convention, 1930, Article 1), subject to international law
• Modes: jus soli, jus sanguinis, naturalisation, registration/resumption, cession, subjugation, option
• Indian law: Citizenship Act, 1955 and Article 9 of the Constitution
• Differentiation: public v. private international law; State's own law v. lex fori; multiple nationality v. one domicile at a time; animus manendi

(a) 'Discuss the above statement in terms of the International Forum' requires the candidate to identify the Bretton Woods Conference and the two institutions whose Articles of Agreement it adopted — the IMF and the IBRD — to describe their constitutions, purposes and machinery, and then to engage critically with the statement's link to the New International Economic Order, which was in fact a later developing-country movement partly directed against the Bretton Woods order. (b) 'Discuss briefly the pre and post developments' of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 requires a chronological account in two halves: the instruments and institutions that led up to Kyoto (Stockholm, Brundtland, the ozone regime, IPCC, Rio and the UNFCCC), the content of the Protocol itself, and the developments after it (Marrakesh, entry into force, Doha Amendment, Paris and after), with the principles of international environmental law running through. (c) Two limbs: explain what human rights mean and their sources in international law; and then discuss, with specificity, the procedures available for enforcing an individual's human rights — the Charter-based machinery, the treaty-body machinery, the regional courts, and individual criminal responsibility — together with the limitations of each.

• Bretton Woods Conference, July 1944; 44 nations; India a founding member
• IMF — purposes, par value system to floating rates, quotas and weighted voting, SDR, surveillance
• IBRD and the World Bank Group; long-term development finance
• Failed ITO; GATT 1947 as the interim trade regime; WTO from 1 January 1995
• NIEO — GA Resolutions 3201 and 3202 (S-VI), 1974; Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 1974
• Critical point: the NIEO postdated and largely challenged the Bretton Woods order
• Stockholm Conference 1972, Principle 21 and UNEP
• Brundtland Report (1987); Montreal Protocol (1987); IPCC (1988)
• Rio 1992: UNFCCC (in force 1994) and CBDR; Annex I / non-Annex I
• Kyoto Protocol, 11 December 1997: Annex B aggregate cut of at least 5% below 1990 in 2008-2012; six gases; no targets for developing countries
• Mechanisms: Joint Implementation (Article 6), CDM (Article 12), Emissions Trading (Article 17)
• Post-Kyoto: US repudiation (2001), entry into force 16 February 2005, Doha Amendment (2012)
• Paris Agreement (2015; in force 2016): NDCs, well below 2 degrees
• Definition and characteristics of human rights; three generations
• Sources: UN Charter Articles 1(3), 55 and 56; UDHR (1948); ICCPR and ICESCR (1966)
• Charter-based machinery: Human Rights Council, UPR, special procedures, complaint procedure; OHCHR
• Treaty bodies: State reports, inter-State and individual communications (Optional Protocol), exhaustion of local remedies
• Regional systems: European, Inter-American and African courts; no Asian court
• Individual criminal responsibility: ICC (Rome Statute 1998/2002), ICTY, ICTR
• Limitations: consent, reservations, non-binding views; no individual standing before the ICJ