15 marks
250 words
Critically examine
“The doctrine of separation of powers in India is not absolute but is maintained through a system of checks and balances.” Critically examine.
Decoding the directive: “Critically examine”
“Critically examine” — investigate the claim AND deliver a judgment on its merits, weighing strengths against tensions.
What UPSC is really asking
Show that India adopted a functional (not rigid) separation, then evaluate how the three organs check each other and where friction arises — judicial review vs. parliamentary sovereignty, judicial overreach, ordinance route, and the basic-structure safeguard.
Dimensions the examiner expects
Cover these dimensions
- Constitutional scheme — functional overlap, not watertight compartments
- Checks — judicial review, legislative oversight, executive accountability
- Tensions — judicial activism vs. overreach, ordinances, delayed appointments
- Basic structure — separation as an unamendable feature (Kesavananda)
- Balanced verdict
Concepts & keywords to name
Use the right vocabulary
- Articles 50, 121, 122, 211, 212 — functional separation
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — separation as basic structure
- Judicial review — Articles 13, 32, 226
- I.R. Coelho / NJAC verdict — inter-organ friction
Common mistakes to avoid
Don’t do this
- Explaining the Montesquieu theory at length but little on India
- No case laws or Articles
- Not addressing the “critically” — missing the tensions/overreach angle
Quick hints before you write
Structuring tips
- Anchor every claim to an Article or judgment.
- Use the NJAC or ordinance debate as a live example of friction.
Ready to write? Evaluate your answer — free
Write your answer to the word limit (250 words) — type it or upload a photo of your handwritten answer in the evaluator. Get a score, dimension breakdown, paragraph-level feedback, missing keywords and a full model answer for this exact question.
Evaluate My Answer →