Political Science & IR 2024 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Write short notes

Paper I — Q5

Write approximately 150 words on each one of the following : 10×5=50 (a) Constitutional morality in the Indian Constitution (b)…

Write approximately 150 words on each one of the following : 10×5=50 (a) Constitutional morality in the Indian Constitution (b) Objective Resolution of the Constituent Assembly (c) Legal remedies in Part III of the Constitution of India (d) Relevance of the Legislative Council (e) Women's role in anti-arrack movement

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्द लिखिए : 10×5=50 (a) भारतीय संविधान में संवैधानिक नैतिकता (b) संविधान सभा का उद्देश्य संकल्प (c) भारतीय संविधान के भाग III में विधिक उपचार (d) विधान परिषद की प्रासंगिकता (e) अरक-विरोधी आंदोलन में महिलाओं की भूमिका

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Write short notes

This question asks you to write short notes. 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 'write short notes' demands concise, information-dense responses of approximately 150 words per sub-part. Allocate roughly 10 marks × 5 = 50 marks equally: spend ~3 minutes per part with balanced word distribution. Structure each part as: definitional opening (30 words), core content with constitutional provisions/judgments (80 words), and contemporary relevance/conclusion (40 words). No elaborate introduction or conclusion spanning parts—treat each as standalone yet thematically connected through constitutional governance.

Key points expected

(a) Constitutional morality: Define as per Dr. Ambedkar/B.R. Ambedkar's vision; contrast with public morality; cite Navtej Singh Johar (2018) or Sabarimala (2018) where SC held constitutional morality overrides popular morality; mention Article 38, 39 as facilitators
(b) Objective Resolution: Moved by Nehru on 13 December 1946; enshrined sovereignty, social-economic-political justice, equality, fundamental rights; became Preamble's philosophical basis; mention its adoption as first session milestone
(c) Legal remedies: Article 32 (SC) and 226 (HC) as fundamental rights themselves; five writs—Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto; mention PIL expansion (S.P. Gupta 1981, Vishaka 1997)
(d) Legislative Council: Article 169—creation/abolition by Parliament on state resolution; bicameralism benefits—checks hasty legislation, representation for minorities/graduates; cite Andhra Pradesh abolition (1985) and recent Telangana/Andhra revival debates
(e) Anti-arrack movement: 1992-93 Andhra Pradesh rural women's spontaneous movement; led by DWCRA groups, Mahila Sangham; forced N.T. Rama Rao prohibition policy; link to autonomous women's movement vs. state-sponsored SHGs; mention Dubagunta and Nellore epicenters

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Demonstrates precise grasp of 'write short notes' by delivering exactly 150 words per part with no overlap; for (a) distinguishes constitutional from public morality; for (b) dates the Resolution correctly; for (c) treats remedies as rights not mere procedures; for (d) balances creation/abolition mechanisms; for (e) identifies movement's autonomous character	Generally understands short note format but exceeds word limits or conflates parts; mixes constitutional morality with basic constitutionalism; vague on Objective Resolution date; lists writs without noting Article 32's status as fundamental right; descriptive on Legislative Council without abolition/creation mechanism; treats anti-arrack as generic prohibition movement	Misinterprets directive as essay or ignores word constraint entirely; writes one continuous answer without part demarcation; confuses constitutional morality with constitutionalism; omits Nehru's role in Objective Resolution; fails to distinguish Article 32 from 226; describes Legislative Council only as 'useless'; conflates anti-arrack with total prohibition
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	For (a): cites Ambedkar's Constituent Assembly speeches and Navtej judgment accurately; for (b): correctly notes 13 December 1946 and Resolution's 22 January 1947 adoption; for (c): specifies writ jurisdictions and recent curtailment debates; for (d): accurate on Article 169 procedure and states with/without Councils; for (e): precise on 1992-93 timeline and DWCRA/Mahila Sangham leadership	Broadly accurate but with minor errors—wrong dates for Objective Resolution, conflates writ jurisdictions, lists states with Councils with one error, vague on anti-arrack leadership; mentions constitutional morality without specific judgments	Major factual errors—attributes Objective Resolution to Patel or wrong year, calls Article 32 'directive principle', states all states have Legislative Councils, dates anti-arrack to 1970s Emergency period; confuses constitutional morality with basic structure doctrine
Structure & flow	20%	10	Each part follows identical tight structure: definitional anchor → constitutional provision/judicial precedent → contemporary application; clear visual separation between (a)-(e); internal coherence within 150 words with logical connectors; no cross-referencing between parts that wastes space	Generally structured but uneven—some parts have definitional openings, others dive directly into content; occasional repetition between constitutional morality and remedies sections; visible but messy part separation; some parts exceed 150 words while others are underdeveloped	No discernible structure within or between parts; continuous prose without (a)-(e) labeling; random information dumping; parts of unequal length with some under 50 words and others exceeding 200; no definitional anchors or conclusions
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	Rich specific citations: for (a) Navtej Singh Johar (2018), Puttaswamy (2017), or Sabarimala; for (b) specific Resolution clauses on 'ancient heritage'; for (c) S.P. Gupta (1981), Vishaka (1997), or specific writ cases like Rudul Shah; for (d) Andhra Pradesh 1985 abolition and 2007 revival, Karnataka/Telangana examples; for (e) Dubagunta, Nellore district, N.T. Rama Rao's 1993 prohibition	Some case law mentioned but imprecise—'Supreme Court held' without case names; general reference to 'PIL cases' without specifics; knows some states have Councils but no abolition examples; mentions 'rural women in Andhra' without organization names or dates	No case law, judgments, or specific data; generic statements like 'courts have said' or 'some states have second houses'; no mention of DWCRA, Mahila Sangham, or specific districts; entirely theoretical treatment devoid of empirical grounding
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Each part ends with sharp contemporary relevance: for (a) current tensions (same-sex marriage, UCC debates); for (b) ongoing Preamble's living document status; for (c) recent concerns on PIL misuse (Sabu Mathew George 2017) or locus standi expansion; for (d) current debates on democratic representation vs. fiscal burden; for (e) lessons for contemporary women's movements and state co-optation risks	Generic concluding sentences—'thus constitutional morality is important' or 'Objective Resolution is significant'; some attempt at relevance but dated or obvious; no critical engagement with current debates	No conclusions in any part; abrupt endings mid-description; or repetitive summaries adding no value; completely missing contemporary relevance even for ongoing debates (same-sex marriage, Council abolition demands)

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 →