3 Sep 2026GS2Topic
Polity: Parliament, the executive, the judiciary and dispute redressal
Previous year questions
5 as set1 · GS2 201710 marks150 words
Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
Show the model answerHide the model answer
Judges are appointed under Articles 124 and 217. The 99th Amendment replaced the collegium with the NJAC. The Court struck it down in 2015.
Why the Court struck it down
Independence is basic structure: Judicial independence is part of it, so no amendment can remove it.
Primacy of the judiciary: The Court traced it to the Second Judges case, 1993.
The executive gained a veto: The Law Minister sat on it, and any two members could block a name.
The eminent persons: No qualification was fixed, so the seats were open to political use.
Where the judgment can be questioned
The collegium is closed: It publishes no criteria and records no reasons.
The dissent: Justice Chelameswar called it opaque and answerable to nobody.
The promised fix stalled: The Memorandum of Procedure remains unsettled.
What should follow
Reform from within: A secretariat, published criteria and a deadline for the government.
Independence was protected. Accountability was postponed. The next reform must come from inside the judiciary.
Show how the answer was builtHide how the answer was built
Decode
Critically examine. Give the reasoning of the Court, then test it.
Implicit demand
The question is not whether the collegium is good. It is whether the Court was right to restore it.
Architecture
The event → why the Court held so → fair criticism → what should follow → verdict.
Articulation
Anchor: Articles 124 and 217, the 99th Amendment, the 2015 judgment, the Second Judges case, the Chelameswar dissent. Money line: independence was protected, accountability was postponed.
Show value added materialHide value added material
Why the Court struck it down
The case is Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, 2015.
The NJAC had six members. The Chief Justice, two senior judges, the Law Minister and two eminent persons.
The First Judges case, 1981 gave the executive the upper hand. The Second Judges case, 1993 reversed it.
The Third Judges case, 1998 fixed the size of the collegium at five.
Supersession of judges in 1973 and 1977 is the history behind the Court's caution.
Where the judgment can be questioned
No other democracy lets judges alone select judges.
The South African Judicial Service Commission is a mixed body and works well.
Justice Chelameswar later stopped attending collegium meetings over the same complaint.
Four senior judges held a press conference in 2018 on the working of the Court.
The Court asked for a better Memorandum of Procedure in a separate order. Nothing was settled.
What should follow
A secretariat to receive names, keep records and run background checks.
Publishing the reasons for rejecting a name, without naming the person.
A fixed timeline for the government to act on a reiterated name.
Starting the process six months before a vacancy arises.
The All India Judicial Service under Article 312 is a separate reform. It covers the district courts.
2 · GS2 201815 marks250 words
How is the Finance Commission of India constituted? What do you know about the terms of reference of the recently constituted Finance Commission? Discuss.
Show the model answerHide the model answer
Article 280 provides for the Finance Commission. The President sets it up every fifth year, or earlier if needed.
How it is constituted
Composition: A Chairman and four other members, all appointed by the President.
Qualifications: The 1951 Act requires a High Court judge, and experts in finance and economics.
Status of the report: It is advisory. Article 281 requires it to be laid before Parliament with a memorandum.
What its terms of reference cover
Vertical devolution: The share of the states in the net proceeds of central taxes.
Horizontal devolution: The formula that divides that share among the individual states.
Grants in aid: Support under Article 275, and funds for panchayats and municipalities.
What the Sixteenth Commission recommended
The Commission: Arvind Panagariya chaired it, and the report was tabled on 1 February 2026.
The vertical share: Kept at 41 per cent of the divisible pool, unchanged from the last award.
The horizontal formula: Income distance 42.5 and population 17.5. Then 10 each for area, forest, demographic performance and contribution to GDP.
Grants in aid: ₹9.47 lakh crore in all. Local bodies get ₹7.91 lakh crore and disaster management the rest.
What was dropped: Revenue deficit grants, sector specific grants and state specific grants have all been ended.
What the states have raised
The shrinking pool: Cess and surcharge under Articles 270 and 271 stay outside the divisible pool.
Less untied money: With revenue deficit grants gone, poorer states lose a cushion they relied on.
The Finance Commission is the balancing wheel of Indian fiscal federalism. Its strength rests on acceptance, not on force.
Show how the answer was builtHide how the answer was built
Decode
Two plain demands. Constitution first, terms of reference second. Both must be answered.
Implicit demand
The paper was set in 2018, when the recent Commission was the Fifteenth. Answer today on the Sixteenth.
Architecture
Article 280 → how it is constituted → standing functions → the present Commission → state concerns → verdict.
Articulation
Anchor: Articles 280, 281, 275, 270 and 271, the 1951 Act, the Sixteenth Commission and its award period. Money line: its strength rests on acceptance, not on force.
Show value added materialHide value added material
How it is constituted
K. C. Neogy chaired the First Commission in 1951. The Sixteenth reported in November 2025.
A member may be reappointed, and the same person may chair a Commission twice.
The Commission has the powers of a civil court. It may summon witnesses and call for records.
Article 280 also allows a reference of any other matter. The test is sound finance.
The formula, compared
The Fifteenth Commission gave income distance 45 and population 15. Area was 15 and forest 10.
The Sixteenth raised population to 17.5 and cut area to 10.
Income distance compares a state with the average of the top three large states.
Demographic performance is now measured by population growth between 1971 and 2011.
Forest now counts open forest, and the rise in forest area between 2015 and 2023.
Contribution to GDP uses the square root of state GSDP. That softens the advantage of large states.
Grants and the fiscal roadmap
Local body grants are split 80 per cent basic and 20 per cent performance.
Half of the basic grant is untied. The rest is tied to sanitation and water.
Three entry conditions apply. One is timely constitution of the State Finance Commission.
Disaster grants are shared 90:10 with Himalayan and north eastern states. Elsewhere the split is 75:25.
The Union should cut its fiscal deficit to 3.5 per cent by 2031.
States get a 3 per cent ceiling. Off budget borrowing should stop altogether.
What the states have raised
States had asked for a 50 per cent share. The Commission left the figure untouched.
Cess and surcharge sit outside the pool. The effective share therefore falls below 41 per cent.
Uttar Pradesh keeps the largest share, about 17.6 per cent. Bihar follows it.
Kerala and Karnataka gained ground compared with the Fifteenth Commission award.
The GST Council and the Finance Commission are the two fiscal forums. Only the second is advisory by design.
3 · GS2 201910 marks150 words
Do you think that Constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of 'checks and balance'? Explain.
Show the model answerHide the model answer
Yes. The Constitution separates functions, not persons. The organs are joined by design.
Where strict separation is absent
Ministers sit in Parliament: The executive is drawn from the legislature.
The President is part of Parliament: Article 79 places the President inside Parliament, with the two Houses.
The executive legislates: It issues ordinances under Article 123 and frames delegated rules.
The legislature judges: It removes judges by address, and punishes breach of privilege.
The judiciary frames rules: Article 145 lets the Court frame its own procedure.
Where the checks lie
Courts on laws: Judicial review under Articles 13, 32 and 226 tests every law.
Parliament on the executive: Questions, motions and control over money keep it answerable.
What the Court has held
Ram Jawaya Kapur, 1955: There is no strict separation, though the functions remain distinct.
Indira Nehru Gandhi, 1975: Parliament cannot decide an election dispute, since that is judicial work.
The Constitution chose balance over walls. Each organ checks the others, and none may replace them.
Show how the answer was builtHide how the answer was built
Decode
A yes or no question with the answer suggested. Agree, then prove it.
Implicit demand
Show both sides. Where separation fails, and where the checks work.
Architecture
The position → absence of strict separation → the checks → case law → verdict.
Articulation
Anchor: Articles 79, 123, 145, 13, 50, and three cases. Money line: the Constitution chose balance over walls.
Show value added materialHide value added material
Where strict separation is absent
The United States follows a stricter model. Cabinet members cannot sit in Congress.
Montesquieu gave the classical theory of separation.
The Speaker decides disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. That is judicial work.
Tribunals exercise judicial power under executive departments.
Money bills need the recommendation of the President under Article 117.
Where the checks lie
The executive has a role in appointments and in creating posts.
Article 121 bars discussion in Parliament on the conduct of a judge.
Article 122 bars courts from questioning parliamentary procedure.
The Comptroller and Auditor General reports to Parliament, not to the government.
Article 74 makes ministerial advice binding on the President.
Case law worth carrying
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1955 is the starting point.
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973 placed separation of powers in the basic structure.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 struck down a clause deciding an election dispute.
Delhi Laws Act case, 1951 allowed delegation, but not of essential legislative function.
Madras Bar Association, 2014 limited how far tribunals may replace courts.
4 · GS2 202015 marks250 words
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
Show the model answerHide the model answer
Judicial legislation means the court laying down rules. The objection is sound. The practice still has a defence.
Activism and overreach are not the same
Judicial activism: The court enforces a right that the executive has been ignoring for years.
Judicial overreach: The court takes over work that the Constitution gives to another organ.
Activism in practice: Vishaka, 1997 framed rules against workplace harassment when no law existed.
Overreach in practice: K. Balu, 2016 banned liquor shops near highways, which is a policy choice.
A warning from the bench: Aravali Golf Club, 2008 warned judges against trying to run the country.
Why the objection holds
Law making sits elsewhere: Articles 245 and 246 place law making with Parliament and the state legislatures.
Courts lack the tools: A bench has no survey data, no consultation machinery and no budget.
Why the petitions are still justified
A right needs a remedy: Articles 32 and 226 promise a remedy, and a court cannot refuse it.
Silence was the problem: There was no law at all, so Vishaka held the field until Parliament acted.
Parliament did act: The law on workplace harassment came in 2013 and replaced those guidelines.
Custody and institutions: D. K. Basu, 1997 laid down arrest rules. Vineet Narain, 1997 gave the CVC its shape.
Where the line should sit
Fill a gap, do not occupy the field: A guideline should lapse the moment the legislature passes a statute.
Say so in the order: Vishaka stated on its face that the rules would hold until a law was made.
Public interest petitions answer legislative silence. They prompt a statute. They cannot replace one.
Show how the answer was builtHide how the answer was built
Decode
A statement is given as true. Then justify a practice that seems to contradict it.
Implicit demand
The whole answer turns on one distinction. Activism fills a gap. Overreach takes over a field.
Architecture
The distinction → why the objection holds → why the petitions are justified → where the line sits → verdict.
Articulation
Anchor: Articles 245, 246, 32 and 226, Vishaka and the 2013 Act, K. Balu, Aravali Golf Club, D. K. Basu, S. P. Gupta. Money line: they prompt a statute, they cannot replace one.
Show value added materialHide value added material
Activism and overreach
Article 142 allows an order needed for complete justice. It is the widest power.
Article 141 makes a declaration of law by the Supreme Court binding on all courts.
M. C. Mehta cases built the polluter pays rule and absolute liability.
Prakash Singh, 2006 gave seven directions on police reform. Most states have not complied.
The Court has itself said that continuing mandamus should not become administration.
PIL misuse has grown. Some petitions serve publicity or private rivalry.
Why the petitions are still justified
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 relied on Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. It also used an international convention.
D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 guidelines now sit in the criminal procedure law.
Directive Principles are not enforceable. Courts have read some of them into Article 21.
Hussainara Khatoon, 1979 brought speedy trial into Article 21 and freed undertrials.
Court appointed committees can gather facts a bench cannot.
Where the line should sit
A sunset clause in the order itself, as Vishaka used.
Continuing mandamus keeps a case alive without the Court running the department.
Costs on frivolous petitions protect the docket.
Refusing a matter already before a tribunal or a committee.
The real cure is legislative attention. Guidelines are the symptom, not the disease.
5 · GS2 202115 marks250 words
Do Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees keep the administration on its toes and inspire reverence for parliamentary control? Evaluate the working of such committees with suitable examples.
Show the model answerHide the model answer
The committee system was reorganised in 1993. There are now 24 department related committees. Each has 31 members.
Where they work well
The budget gets read: Parliament passes most demands by guillotine. In 2023 the demands went through with almost no debate.
Bills improve: The joint committee on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code reworked the draft before passage.
Silence can be an answer: The committee on the data protection bill sought over eighty changes. The bill was withdrawn in 2022.
Officials must answer: The Standing Committee on Finance called the Governor of the Reserve Bank after demonetisation.
Party noise falls: Meetings are closed, and most reports carry a common recommendation with dissent notes attached.
Where they fall short
Attendance is thin: Meetings are often put off because the quorum of one third is not present.
Tenure is one year: A member usually leaves the committee before the learning can be put to use.
Reports do not bind: The government may accept a recommendation, ignore it, or simply not reply.
Referral has fallen: The farm laws of 2020 went to no committee at all.
No research support: Members examine technical bills without any research staff of their own.
The two claims tested
On keeping the administration alert: Yes, because a secretary must appear and defend the record in person.
On reverence for parliamentary control: Less so, since referral depends on the mood of the government of the day.
These committees keep the administration answerable. They do not command obedience. Reverence will follow referral, attendance and follow up, not the design alone.
Show how the answer was builtHide how the answer was built
Decode
Evaluate, with examples. Two claims are made. Test each one.
Implicit demand
The question has two parts. Keeping the administration alert is one. Inspiring reverence is another.
Architecture
The design → where they work → where they fall short → examples → verdict.
Articulation
Anchor: the 1993 reorganisation, 24 committees, the guillotine, the 2023 criminal law bills, the farm laws of 2020. Money line: they keep the administration answerable, but they do not command obedience.
Show value added materialHide value added material
The design
24 committees. Each has 21 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha.
A minister cannot be a member. If a member becomes a minister, the seat falls vacant.
They rest on the Rules of Procedure of both Houses, and not on the Constitution.
Financial committees are separate. Public Accounts, Estimates and Public Undertakings.
The Public Accounts Committee is chaired by a member of the opposition, by convention.
The system was recommended by the Rules Committee and started with 17 committees in 1993.
Examples worth carrying
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: the joint committee reworked the draft before passage.
Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill: the transport committee examined it before the 2019 law.
Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019: the committee sought wide changes. The bill was withdrawn.
Criminal law bills, 2023: referred to the home affairs committee, then reintroduced with changes.
Farm laws, 2020: passed with no committee stage. That became part of the protest itself.
Demonetisation: the finance committee summoned the Reserve Bank Governor and senior officials.
Where they fall short
The share of bills referred to committees has fallen sharply over recent Lok Sabhas.
A money bill classification limits both the Rajya Sabha and committee scrutiny.
Reports on ordinances often arrive after the ordinance has already done its work.
No rule requires the government to reply to every recommendation within a fixed time.
Proceedings are confidential, so public debate gains nothing until the report is tabled.
Reform worth carrying
Referral of every bill as the default. The House should record reasons for any exception.
A tenure of two or three years, so that learning is not lost each year.
A research unit for each committee, on the model of the Congressional Research Service.
A time limit for the government to table its action taken reply.
Public hearings on major bills, as select committees hold in the United Kingdom.
A rule that the House discusses the committee report before passing the bill.