Chat with us
General Studies 2021 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Evaluate

GS Paper II — Q15

Do Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees keep the administration on its toes and inspire reverence for…

Do Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees keep the administration on its toes and inspire reverence for parliamentary control? Evaluate the working of such committees with suitable examples. (Answer in 250 words) 15 marks

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

क्या विभागों से संबंधित संसदीय स्थायी समितियाँ प्रशासन को अपने पैर की उंगलियों पर रखती हैं और संसदीय नियंत्रण के लिए सम्मान-प्रदर्शन हेतु प्रेरित करती हैं? उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के साथ ऐसी समितियों के कार्यों का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Q15 of the 2021 UPSC Mains General Studies GS Paper II, as printed
The question as printed in the 2021 General Studies paper
Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies questions

Model answer

Written by UPSC Answer Check against this question's marking rubric, to the 250-word length. UPSC does not publish answers for Mains — this is one way to score well, not an official key.

Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees (DRSCs), created in 1993 as 17 committees and expanded to 24 in 2004, are the principal institutional mechanism through which Parliament exercises continuous oversight of ministries. Composed mainly of members of the House, with a few opposition members, they examine demands for grants, bills, annual reports, policy implementation and administrative performance.

Their strength lies in sustained, expert scrutiny. The Communications Committee’s 2G spectrum scrutiny, reinforced by the PAC, exposed administrative discretion and strengthened the case for transparent allocation. The Finance Committee’s report on demonetisation tested the executive’s policy rationale, while the Health Committee’s examination of COVID-19 management highlighted gaps in preparedness and inter-ministerial coordination. Such reports force ministries to explain decisions, document assumptions and respond to dissent.

Yet their impact is uneven. Recommendations are not binding; the government can accept, modify or reject them, and follow-up is weak. Committees often face time constraints, limited research support, low attendance, and partisan functioning, which dilute technical depth. Their formal authority is high, but actual impact varies; the administration may treat them as a procedural hurdle rather than a source of reverence, especially when reports are delayed or recommendations are not implemented.

To make DRSCs genuinely authoritative, they need more powers to summon officials, stronger follow-up mechanisms, mandatory government responses, better secretarial and research support, greater public visibility, and periodic review of implementation. On balance, they keep the administration on its toes more than they inspire reverence; their effectiveness depends, in the long run, on institutional discipline and political seriousness.

What "Evaluate" is asking you to do

Judge how well something has performed against the standard it set for itself — its stated aim, mandate or promise — and commit to a verdict. Name the yardstick before you judge; an unanchored judgement reads as opinion.

Structure that answers it

Name the yardstick — stated aim, mandate or benchmark → performance against it → shortfall against it → why the gap exists → verdict

Where marks are lost

Presenting both sides and then declining to decide, or delivering a verdict against a standard you never stated, which makes it look arbitrary.

All UPSC directive words, compared →

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Framework: Principle > Institution > Problem with example > Realistic reform. evaluate: criteria > evidence > balanced judgment Full marks: Balanced evaluation with specific examples and a clear reform suggestion.

Key points expected

  • Define DRPSCs and their constitutional/statutory basis
  • Explain mechanisms of control (e.g., summoning officers, document review)
  • Provide specific examples of committee actions (e.g., 2G spectrum, coal allocation)
  • Critically assess limitations (e.g., lack of enforcement power, executive dominance)

Evaluation rubric

Each sub-part is marked on its own, against the marks and word limit printed on the paper.

  1. The answer Assess the effectiveness of Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees (DRPSCs) in exercising control over the administration. 15 marks · 250 words

    evaluate— criteria → evidence → balanced judgment

    Must cover

    • Define DRPSCs and their constitutional/statutory basis
    • Explain mechanisms of control (e.g., summoning officers, document review)
    • Provide specific examples of committee actions (e.g., 2G spectrum, coal allocation)
    • Critically assess limitations (e.g., lack of enforcement power, executive dominance)

    Loses marks

    • Reciting Article 110 without application to committees
    • Focusing only on composition without discussing powers
    • Ending without a reform or way forward

    Earns more

    • Mention the 2G spectrum scam investigation
    • Reference the Coal Allocation Committee report
    • Discuss the role in the 2016 CAG report on railways
    • Mention the 2018 Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) on CAG

    Extra mark

    • Cite 2nd ARC recommendations on strengthening committees
    • Reference Law Commission report on parliamentary committees

Practice this exact question

Write your answer and it is marked point by point against the model answer above — what you covered, what you missed, what you got wrong.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2021 GS Paper II