Kshitij Sethi:

Sauvik Singh 15 The essay does not represent the original views of the author, lacks
in innovative content and uses poor language for articulation.”

Shourya Garg 17 “The essay does not represent the original views of the author and
lacks in innovative and contemporary content. It has clearly been plagiarised.”

Atrey Tripathi 20 “The essay does not seem to represent the original views of the
author. A large part of it has clearly been plagiarised. Otherwise, the content is
satisfactory and compelling.”

Rajesh:

Arjun Kumar 17 “It is mainly based on general information available and there is no
originality in ideas put forth by the author. The flow is improper and lacks
originality.”

Rishabh Manik 21 “Decent but lacks originality of ideas. The flow is proper and
makes sense but it lacks novelty.”

Palak Jagetia 26 “The Article provides detailed analysis of the topic and covers
important aspects of judicial activism in perfect way. The reasoning and interpretation
put forth by the author sounds logical. The flow is proper and coherent.”

Suryansh Verma:

Aaditya Mootha 21 “The author has tried to elaborate as to how the judiciary has
been active in protecting the rights of the citizens. However, there is no proper
mention of the cases of judicial activism. The author has mentioned articles from the
Constitution which elaborate upon the powers of the Court to issue writs. The
language is fine however it could have been mad better. Also, there is no proper
flow.”

Aryan Ahmed 24.5 “The content throughout the article is extremely good. The
author has made use of the Black’s Law Dictionary, cases, opinions and theories. All
in all it’s a good article. The author has broadly elaborated upon the topic. The author
stuck to the primary definition and has also shown how the judiciary is active in
 making key judgments. The language used is also perfectly fine, everything is easily
comprehendible.”

Astha Shivhare 22.5 “The author strictly talked about the concept of transformative
constitutionalism. Elucidates upon the topic by explaining how the Constitution needs
to and has evolved in the past. The author has used case laws, opinions of judges to
explain the subject matter. The author tells us about how the Constitution has evolved
and keeps evolving. The language and flow of the article is good. However, the
language could have been made better.”

Priyanka Preet:

Gaurav Pratap 17.5 “very average content. Not much research. Can be admitted.”

Keshav Sharma 20

Sanket Khandelwal 19

Shreya Shrivastava:

Anirudh Tyagi 25 “Overall a commendable work by the author. Although there is

scope for more, yet the effort put in was good.”

Siddhant Kampani 23 “A good effort from the author. Clarity of idea and a clear
structure were missing.”

Alok Raj 22 “A good effort from the author. Author’s own views, creativity and a
clear structure were missing.”

Anant Singh:

Shreya Soni 18

Vaibhav Gaur 19

Sanchita Namdev 20

Saharsh

Muskan Pamnani 21 “An above average essay on the whole”

 Saurabh Singh 22 “The essay could have been much more precise and within the
prescribed word limit. However, the content is rich and well-researched.”

Hardik Bansal 23 “The author is thorough in research, however a bit amelioration in

the language is necessary.”

Vini:

Mohd Sahid Raini 19 “The essay could have been in more coherence. The sub-heads
seemed quite abrupt. For future, you can mention in your introduction itself what
ambit will the article cover so that the evaluator reads with that frame of mind only.
Judicial Activism is also a broad topic and hence needs a good introduction. Keep
writing!”

Aryan Raj 18 “The difference between Judicial review and activism came too early
in the essay. Furthermore, it would have been better had you divided your essay into
sub-heads or gave a proper introduction as well as conclusion.”

Ravishankar:

Hemant Singh 19 “Fit to be a part of the society”

Mayank Bhandari 23 “Fit to be a part of the society”

Shewani Gupta 16 “Fit to be a part of the society”