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

Q15

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

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)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'evaluate' demands a balanced judgment on whether DRSCs effectively ensure administrative accountability and parliamentary supremacy. Structure: brief introduction defining DRSCs → body examining their mechanisms of oversight with examples → critical assessment of limitations → conclusion with reform suggestions.

Key points expected

  • Definition and composition of Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees (DRSCs) under the 1993 reforms
  • Mechanisms of oversight: examination of Demands for Grants, scrutiny of bills, review of annual reports, examination of policy implementation
  • Specific examples of effective functioning: 2G spectrum (PAC), demonetization (Finance Committee), COVID-19 management (Health Committee), or any recent high-profile committee reports
  • Limitations: lack of binding recommendations, executive non-compliance, limited time, inadequate research support, low attendance, partisan functioning
  • Assessment of whether they inspire 'reverence' — contrast between formal authority and actual impact on administration
  • Reforms needed: more powers, better infrastructure, post-committee follow-up mechanism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%3Clearly distinguishes 'evaluate' from mere description; presents a balanced judgment on both effectiveness ('keep on toes') and symbolic authority ('reverence'); addresses both parts of the compound question equallyAttempts evaluation but leans heavily on description; treats 'keep on toes' and 'reverence' as synonymous without analytical separationMisreads directive as 'explain' or 'describe'; ignores either 'effectiveness' or 'reverence' aspect; provides only committee functions without judgment
Content depth & accuracy20%3Accurately details DRSC composition (31 members, Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha ratio), 24 committees covering ministries; explains post-establishment committee vs. DRSC distinction; covers both financial and legislative scrutiny powers under Rules 331C-331EBasic accurate information on DRSCs but confuses with other committees (PAC, Estimates Committee); vague on specific powers and limitationsFactual errors (e.g., calling them 'ad hoc', wrong composition numbers); conflates DRSCs with PAC/Estimates Committee; irrelevant content on state legislatures
Structure & flow20%3Logical progression: introduction → mechanisms of control → evidence of effectiveness → limitations → balanced conclusion; smooth transitions between 'toes' and 'reverence' analysis; within word limit with no abrupt jumpsUnderstandable structure but either description-heavy in beginning or criticism-heavy at end; some repetition between effectiveness and limitations sectionsDisorganized: jumps between examples and mechanisms without framework; no clear separation between positive and negative aspects; conclusion merely restates introduction
Examples / case-law / data20%3Specific, recent examples: 2G/PAC (2010-11), demonetization Standing Committee report (2017), COVID-19 Health Committee examination, or Agriculture Committee on farm laws; mentions non-acceptance of recommendations by government as evidenceGeneric reference to '2G scam' or 'corruption cases' without committee specificity; outdated examples (pre-2010); no mention of government response to recommendationsNo examples or irrelevant examples (state committees, UK Parliament); fabricated committee names; examples that actually belong to PAC/Estimates Committee
Conclusion & analytical edge20%3Nuanced verdict: DRSCs create procedural accountability but not substantive 'reverence'; suggests concrete reforms (binding recommendations, dedicated research staff, follow-up mechanism); reflects on gap between parliamentary potential and executive dominanceBalanced but generic conclusion ('strengthening needed'); no specific reform suggestions; restates limitations without synthesisOne-sided conclusion (only praise or only criticism); no reform suggestions; abrupt ending; introduces new arguments in conclusion

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2021 GS Paper II