How toppers approached this question
To what extent can the PIL system be held responsible for shifting the focus of the higher Courts from "constitutional matters" to day-to-day matters? What role can the trial Courts play in reducing the overall burden on higher Courts?
How toppers built answers of this type: the structure spine and the moves they converged on. Aggregated across real past-paper answers for this paper and directive, not this one question, so no question-specific evidence is shown. No answer text is reproduced.
The topper method
Stance then justify
The spine toppers built
Open
- Define the key term first
- Context-hook opening
Build
- Both sides before the verdict
- Multi-dimensional buckets
- Numbered enumeration
Close
- Verdict conclusion
- Forward-looking close
Moves they converged on
- Both sides before the verdict79% of answers
Weigh both sides before taking a stand.
- Example as evidence68% of answers
Tag a concrete example explicitly as evidence.
- Define the key term first63% of answers
Open by defining the central term.
- Stance then justify61% of answers
Take a stance, then justify it.
- Verdict conclusion61% of answers
End with a clear verdict.
Evidence toppers carried (per answer)
Current events ~2Institutions ~2Judgments ~2Concepts ~2Examples ~1Other anchors ~1Data points ~1Principles ~1
GS2 · Stance then justify: derived from 38 real past-paper answers: counts, not copied prose
Write your own answer to this question
Mark my answer freeMethod is derived from real past-paper answers as anonymized aggregate signal. Construction moves and counts, never copied answer text.