UPSC CARE Mains Practice 19th February 2026
Mains Practice Questions for the Day
- Examine the significance of the India–France Special Global Strategic Partnership in shaping India’s foreign policy and technological future. (GS II – International Relations – India–France relations)
- Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (GS Paper II – Polity)
Q. Examine the significance of the India–France Special Global Strategic Partnership in shaping India’s foreign policy and technological future. (GS II – International Relations – India–France relations)
Introduction:
India and France elevated bilateral relations to a Special Global Strategic Partnership in 2026, marking a qualitative transformation in cooperation across defence, technology, and global governance amid shifting geopolitical dynamics.
Body
Key Dimensions
1. Strategic & Geopolitical
- Supports multipolar global order.
- Strengthens India’s strategic autonomy.
- Enhances Indo-Pacific cooperation.
2. Defence Cooperation
- Transition from buyer–seller to co-production.
- Joint manufacturing (H125 helicopters, missiles).
- Technology transfer and indigenous defence capability.
3. Technology & AI Leadership
- Cooperation in ethical AI governance.
- Joint research institutions in AI and digital science.
- Builds technological sovereignty.
4. Economic & Innovation Partnership
- Startup collaboration and innovation networks.
- Improved investment climate via DTAA amendment.
- Critical minerals cooperation ensures supply security.
Challenges
- Technological gap with US and China.
- Export control and IP barriers.
- European economic uncertainties.
Way Forward
- Expand joint R&D ecosystems.
- Institutionalise AI regulatory cooperation.
- Strengthen trilateral Indo-Pacific partnerships.
Conclusion:
The upgraded partnership reflects India’s evolving foreign policy aimed at diversified strategic engagement. By deepening ties with France, India enhances technological capability, defence self-reliance, and global strategic influence in an increasingly complex world order.
Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (GS Paper II – Polity)
Introduction:
The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act were enacted to replace the collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. In 2015, in the Fourth Judges Case, the Supreme Court struck down both as unconstitutional, holding that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly judicial independence. The judgement became a defining moment in the evolution of India’s judicial appointments framework.
Body
Background and Salient Features of NJAC
The NJAC sought to create a six-member body comprising the Chief Justice of India (Chairperson), two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, CJI and Leader of Opposition. The objective was to introduce transparency, accountability and broader participation in appointments, addressing concerns of opacity, lack of criteria and allegations of nepotism in the collegium system.
Grounds for Striking Down NJAC
The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, invalidated the amendment and the Act on the following grounds:
- Violation of Basic Structure: Judicial independence is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Inclusion of the executive and eminent persons was seen as compromising this independence.
- Dilution of Judicial Primacy: The Court held that judicial appointments cannot be subject to executive influence, as this would undermine separation of powers.
- Risk of Political Interference: The possibility of veto by non-judicial members was viewed as weakening institutional autonomy.
Critical Evaluation
The judgement strengthened constitutional supremacy and safeguarded judicial independence from potential executive overreach. However, critics argue that striking down a unanimously passed constitutional amendment reflected judicial overreach. Further, while acknowledging deficiencies in the collegium system, the Court did not institute structural reforms, thereby perpetuating concerns of opacity and limited accountability.
Conclusion:
The NJAC verdict reaffirmed judicial independence as a constitutional cornerstone. Nevertheless, the continuing debate highlights the need for a reformed appointments mechanism that balances independence with transparency, accountability and inclusiveness, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of the higher judiciary.