“Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute.” Comment.

Key learnings from their answer

• ›On the sons-of-the-soil question (Q3), the candidate didn't just say local-jobs reservation is divisive, he anchored the constitutional counter-argument in Article 19's right to freely move, settle and work, and named the stake as the founders' fear of a 'virtual balkanization of India'; the evaluator explicitly marked this balance of views as 'good.' -> When a 'Comment' question pits economic logic against unity/integrity, fix one named Article to the rights side and a vivid, exam-ready phrase to the cost side, that pairing of legal hook + evocative consequence is what earned the 'good.'
• ›The examiner's red-pen corrections are themselves the lesson: 'Recently...' was circled with 'Should not start with such words' and 'does not address the context properly'; the FPTP intro got 'write full form first' and 'address both aspects of the question in the intro itself'; and the locals-reservation answer got 'examples, Haryana etc.' -> Treat the intro as load-bearing: open with the full form/definition, address every part of the demand in the first lines (not a vague 'Recently'), and back claims with a named state/case rather than generic phrasing.