(a) How far do you agree that the Directive Principles of State Policy are more fundamental than the Fundamental Rights in meeting socio-economic justice as mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution? 20

(b) Explain the structure and functions of

Question

(a) How far do you agree that the Directive Principles of State Policy are more fundamental than the Fundamental Rights in meeting socio-economic justice as mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution? 20

(b) Explain the structure and functions of the National Commission for Women. 15

(c) The legacy of the Planning Commission still has a bearing on India's development policies. Discuss. 15

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The question demands critical evaluation across three parts: (a) requires a balanced assessment of DPSP vs FR with the 'how far' nuance; (b) needs descriptive explanation of NCW structure and functions; (c) calls for analytical discussion of Planning Commission's enduring influence. Spend approximately 40% time/words on part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each on parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then address each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, and conclude with an integrated synthesis on constitutional-institutional continuity in Indian governance.
- Part (a): DPSP as transformative constitutionalism (Art. 36-51) vs FR as negative liberties; Minerva Mills, Kesavananda, and post-1971 constitutional amendments establishing DPSP primacy in Article 31C; judicial balancing through 'harmony construction' in Mohan Lal Tripathi and subsequent cases; critique of non-justiciability vs FR enforceability
- Part (a): Socio-economic justice as Preamble goal—comparative analysis of DPSP's positive obligations (Art. 39, 41, 46) versus FR's individual-centric approach; 42nd and 44th Amendment implications; contemporary relevance in welfare jurisprudence
- Part (b): NCW statutory basis (NCW Act, 1990), composition (Chairperson, members), and organizational structure with headquarters and regional offices
- Part (b): NCW functions—investigative, recommendatory, research and documentation, legal aid coordination; limitations (non-binding powers, financial dependence, executive dominance)
- Part (c): Planning Commission's institutional legacy in NITI Aayog's continuation of five-year planning mindset; centralized resource allocation patterns, Centrally Sponsored Schemes architecture, and state capacity building
- Part (c): Specific policy continuities—NITI Aayog's SDG localization, Aspirational Districts Programme, and sectoral councils as modified planning mechanisms; critique of top-down vs cooperative federalism tension

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Correctly identifies 'evaluate' as primary directive for part (a), treating 'how far' as requiring nuanced position-taking rather than binary conclusion; recognizes 'explain' for (b) and 'discuss' for (c) as secondary demands; maintains evaluative tension throughout (a) without collapsing into one-sided advocacy; for (c), moves beyond description to critical assessment of legacy	Addresses all three parts but treats (a) as simple comparison rather than evaluation; may conflate directives or apply 'discuss' uniformly; shows awareness of 'how far' nuance but resolves it too quickly; parts (b) and (c) remain descriptive without analytical depth	Misreads 'how far' as requiring definitive yes/no answer; ignores directive variations across parts; treats entire question as uniform 'discuss' or 'describe'; fails to engage with evaluative dimension in any part
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Demonstrates precise constitutional knowledge: Articles 36-51, 31C, 368; accurate NCW Act provisions and structural details; correct institutional genealogy from Planning Commission (1950-2014) to NITI Aayog; cites specific DPSP articles (39(a)-(b), 41, 46) and their judicial interpretation; no factual errors in dates, constitutional provisions, or institutional mandates	Generally accurate on broad constitutional provisions but may conflate specific articles (e.g., DPSP with FR numbers); NCW description lacks specificity on composition or functional limitations; Planning Commission legacy mentioned but without precise policy mechanisms; minor errors in dates or constitutional amendments	Significant factual errors: confuses DPSP with FR articles, misstates NCW as constitutional body, incorrect on Planning Commission abolition date or NITI Aayog's structure; generic treatment without specific constitutional or statutory references
Structure & flow	20%	10	Clear tripartite organization with explicit (a), (b), (c) sub-headings; proportional length reflecting mark distribution; smooth transitions between theoretical (a), institutional (b), and policy-historical (c) components; integrated conclusion connecting all three parts to broader theme of constitutional governance and institutional evolution	All three parts present but unevenly developed; may lack clear sub-headings or have confusing organization; conclusion limited to part (a) or generic summary; transitions between parts feel mechanical; some imbalance in length (e.g., excessive detail on NCW at expense of DPSP analysis)	Disorganized or missing parts; no clear demarcation between (a), (b), (c); severe imbalance (e.g., ignores part (c) entirely or gives it cursory treatment); no conclusion or abrupt ending; stream-of-consciousness writing without structural logic
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	For (a): Minerva Mills (1980), Kesavananda (1973), Champakam Dorairajan (1951), and post-1971 amendment jurisprudence; for (b): specific NCW reports (e.g., on Mathura rape case, dowry deaths) or recent interventions; for (c): specific scheme continuities (MGNREGA planning origins, Aspirational Districts Programme), NITI Aayog's SDG India Index, or comparative state plan outlay data	Mentions landmark cases for (a) but without specific legal reasoning; NCW examples generic or outdated; Planning Commission legacy illustrated with broad references to 'five-year plans' without specific scheme analysis; examples present but not tightly integrated to argument	No case law for (a); no specific NCW activities or reports for (b); only vague assertion that 'planning continues' for (c) without institutional or policy evidence; examples factually wrong or irrelevant
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes all three parts into coherent thesis on constitutional-institutional continuity: DPSP's rising salience in judicial interpretation, statutory bodies as DPSP implementation mechanisms, and planning legacy as enduring administrative habitus; offers original insight on tension between transformative constitutionalism and institutional path dependence; may reference contemporary debates (e.g., Basic Structure doctrine expansion, NITI Aayog's effectiveness critique)	Separate conclusions for each part or generic summary restating main points; limited synthesis across (a)-(b)-(c); no original analytical contribution; relies on standard textbook conclusions about DPSP-FR balance or Planning Commission replacement	No conclusion or abrupt termination; conclusion merely repeats introduction; fails to address all three parts in closing; analytical confusion or contradiction with body of answer

(a) How far do you agree that the Directive Principles of State Policy are more fundamental than the Fundamental Rights in…

Directive word: Evaluate

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Political Science & IR 2024 Paper I