GS-2 Mains 2024: Cabinet vs Parliamentary Supremacy — Full Model Answer (7/10 → 9/10)

In the UPSC GS-2 paper, questions regarding the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature are perennial. The 2024 Mains featured a sophisticated prompt that required candidates to move beyond textbook definitions of the "Westminster model" and analyse the actual power dynamics in the Indian Parliament.

The core of the debate lies in the tension between Article 75, which makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, and the practical reality of a strong Cabinet that often steers the legislature rather than being steered by it.

The question and rubric

The Question: "The growth of the cabinet system has practically resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy.” Elucidate. (GS2 2024)

To score high on this question, an aspirant must not simply agree with the statement. The directive "Elucidate" requires a detailed explanation of how this marginalisation happens, while a balanced answer must also identify the remaining checks and balances that prevent a total "Cabinet Dictatorship."

The Scoring Rubric

---

A 7/10 answer (annotated)

This represents a typical "safe" answer. It is correct but lacks the analytical edge and evidence required for the top bracket.

Answer: The Cabinet system in India is based on the principle of collective responsibility under Article 75. Parliamentary supremacy means that the Parliament is the highest law-making body. However, in recent years, the Cabinet has become more powerful, leading to the marginalisation of Parliament.

Firstly, the government controls the agenda of the house. Most bills are introduced by the government, and private member bills are rarely passed. Secondly, the use of the "Whip" ensures that members of the ruling party vote according to the Cabinet's wishes, reducing independent debate. Thirdly, the frequent use of ordinances allows the executive to make laws without prior parliamentary approval. Additionally, delegated legislation allows the bureaucracy to frame rules, reducing the role of MPs.

However, Parliament is not completely marginalised. The Opposition uses debates to highlight failures. Parliamentary committees still scrutinise some bills. Most importantly, the Judiciary can strike down laws through judicial review.

Therefore, while the Cabinet has grown stronger, the Parliament still holds the ultimate power to remove the government through a no-confidence motion. We must strengthen parliamentary traditions to ensure better accountability.

Editorial Annotations:

• Demand-Directive: The student understood the prompt but provided a "list" rather than an "elucidation."
• Content Depth: Very generic. Mentions "Article 75" but fails to cite any specific case laws or recent data.
• Structure: Standard, but the transitions between paragraphs are abrupt.
• Examples: No specific examples. "Frequent use of ordinances" is a claim; citing the D.C. Wadhwa case would be evidence.
• Conclusion: Too brief and generic.

---

An 8.5/10 answer (annotated)

This answer demonstrates "substance-first" writing. It uses data and legal precedents to prove its points, moving from descriptive to analytical.

Answer: The Indian parliamentary system is designed as a system of "checks and balances" where the Cabinet, while exercising executive power, remains accountable to the legislature under Article 75(3). However, the evolution of a strong party-based executive has shifted the center of gravity from the floor of the House to the Cabinet room.

Mechanisms of Parliamentary Marginalisation The marginalisation of parliamentary supremacy is evident through several structural and procedural trends:

1. Erosion of Legislative Scrutiny: There is a declining trend in referring Bills to Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs). While the 14th Lok Sabha saw roughly 60% of bills referred to committees, this figure dropped significantly in the 16th and 17th Lok Sabhas (reaching as low as 27% in some periods), limiting deep-dive deliberation.
2. Executive Law-making via Ordinances: The frequent use of the ordinance route bypasses legislative scrutiny. The Supreme Court in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar cautioned against the "re-promulgation" of ordinances, describing it as a "fraud on the Constitution."
3. The "Whip" and Party Discipline: The Anti-Defection Law (10th Schedule) has effectively turned MPs into voting proxies for the Cabinet. This was evident in the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, where the party whip stifled internal dissent and independent legislative debate.
4. Delegated Legislation: The increasing complexity of governance has led to "skeleton legislation," where Parliament passes a broad framework and leaves the critical details to be filled by the executive (rules/regulations). The V.K. Kunjlengam case highlights how this trend can dilute the legislative intent.
5. Control over the Purse: While the Budget is passed by Parliament, the formulation of financial policy is exclusively a Cabinet prerogative. For instance, the COVID-19 Relief Package (2020) was largely formulated and executed by the executive with minimal parliamentary oversight on the specific allocation of funds.

Counter-vailing Forces: The Persistence of Supremacy Despite these trends, parliamentary supremacy is not extinct but has evolved:

• Judicial Review: The judiciary acts as a sentinel. In the Shreya Singhal case (2015), the SC struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, proving that executive-led legislation is subject to constitutional validity.
• Committee Oversight: Committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), often chaired by the Opposition, continue to hold the government accountable for financial irregularities (e.g., scrutiny of 2G spectrum allocations).
• Public Discourse: The Parliament remains the primary site for national debate, where the Opposition can mobilise public sentiment against unpopular policies.

Conclusion The "Cabinet-centric" nature of Indian governance is a byproduct of the need for stability and decisive action. However, for a representative democracy to thrive, the Parliament must move from being a "rubber stamp" to a "deliberative body." Restoring the primacy of Standing Committees and limiting the use of ordinances are essential steps to ensure that executive efficiency does not come at the cost of democratic accountability.

Editorial Annotations:

• Demand-Directive: Fully elucidated. It explains how the shift happened and provides a balanced counter-perspective.
• Content Depth: High. References Article 75, the 10th Schedule, and specific data on DRSCs.
• Structure: Excellent. Uses clear headings and a logical progression of arguments.
• Examples: Strong. Cites D.C. Wadhwa, Shreya Singhal, and the CAA 2019.
• Conclusion: Analytical and suggests a way forward (restoring committees).

---

The 5 specific edits that lifted the score

If you want to evaluate your own answer and move from a 7 to an 8.5, focus on these specific transitions:

1. From Generalities to Data: The 7/10 answer said "committees are ignored." The 8.5/10 answer cited the drop from 60% to 27% referral rates. Data transforms a "feeling" into a "fact."
2. From "Laws" to "Case Law": Instead of saying "the court can stop bad laws," the high-scoring answer cited D.C. Wadhwa (on ordinances) and Shreya Singhal (on judicial review). This proves the candidate knows the legal landscape.
3. Contextualizing the "Whip": The 7/10 answer mentioned the whip. The 8.5/10 answer linked it to the 10th Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) and the CAA 2019. This shows an understanding of the legal mechanism that causes the marginalisation.
4. Nuancing the "Supremacy": The 8.5/10 answer didn't just say "Parliament is still there." It identified specific tools of supremacy, such as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the role of the Opposition in public discourse.
5. Actionable Conclusion: The 7/10 answer ended with "we must strengthen traditions." The 8.5/10 answer suggested limiting ordinances and reviving DRSCs. This is what examiners call a "constructive" conclusion.

---

Common mistakes

When writing on the Cabinet vs Parliament dynamic, avoid these pitfalls:

• The "Dictatorship" Trap: Do not use overly emotive or political language (e.g., "the government is acting like a dictatorship"). Use administrative terms like "Executive Dominance" or "Cabinet-centric governance."
• Ignoring the 10th Schedule: You cannot explain the marginalisation of MPs without mentioning the Anti-Defection Law. It is the primary legal reason why MPs cannot vote against the Cabinet.
• Confusing "Cabinet" with "Government": The Cabinet is the inner circle of decision-makers. Be precise. The marginalisation happens because the Cabinet decides, and the Parliament merely approves.
• Overlooking the Judiciary: In India, neither the Cabinet nor the Parliament is truly "supreme"—the Constitution is. Always mention the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

Conclusion

The shift toward Cabinet supremacy is a global trend in parliamentary democracies, but in India, it is exacerbated by the Anti-Defection Law and the decline of committee culture. To master this topic, your next action should be to map the last five years of Bill referral data to Standing Committees and note which major bills bypassed this process. This evidence will be the "X-factor" in your actual GS-2 Mains answer.