View answer copy →Anudeep DurishettyAIR 1CSE 2017
Answered a very similar question
Their question: “Should the Election Commission get contempt-of-court powers; growing challenges before EC”
The topper defends EVM trustworthiness via VVPAT and the EC's public hack challenge while cataloguing the growing challenges before the EC, directly serving this PYQ on the EVM controversy and the EC's task of ensuring trustworthy elections.
Key learnings from their answer
- ›He took clear, reasoned positions instead of hedging: on Q8 he argued the Election Commission should NOT get contempt powers because it already has constitutional autonomy under Article 324, and defended EVM integrity by citing VVPAT and the EC's public hack challenge. -> When a question asks 'should X', commit to a side and justify it with a specific constitutional/factual anchor, a defended stance backed by Article 324 and VVPAT beats a balanced-but-noncommittal answer.
- ›Clear, reasoned stances: argues the Election Commission should NOT receive contempt powers (it already has constitutional autonomy), defends EVM integrity via VVPAT, and frames the internet as a 'global commons' needing multi-stakeholder governance.
What they cited: Article 324 (Election Commission); paid news, criminalisation of politics, Model Code of Conduct; EVM-tampering debunked via VVPAT and EC's hack challenge (Q8)