General Studies 2021 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Evaluate

Q4

To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India? (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

आपकी दृष्टि में, भारत में कार्यपालिका की जवाबदेही को निश्चित करने में संसद कहाँ तक समर्थ है? (उत्तर 150 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 'to what extent' demands a balanced evaluation, not mere description. Begin with a brief assertion on Parliament's constitutional mandate, then assess effectiveness through mechanisms like Question Hour, debates, committees, and No-Confidence Motion, weighing strengths against limitations such as anti-defection law and executive dominance. Conclude with a nuanced judgment on the gap between constitutional promise and practical reality.

Key points expected

Constitutional basis: Articles 75(3), 85, and 118 providing parliamentary oversight mechanisms
Effective tools: Question Hour, Zero Hour, Calling Attention Motion, and Short Duration Discussions
Committee system: PAC, Estimates Committee, and Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs) as 'mini-Parliaments'
Limitations: Anti-defection law (10th Schedule) reducing MP independence, frequent disruptions, lack of specialized research support
Executive dominance: Majority governments, ordinance misuse, and limited time for legislative scrutiny
Recent reforms: Live streaming of House proceedings, increased committee referrals post-2014

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Recognizes 'to what extent' requires a balanced judgment with both enabling mechanisms and constraints; avoids binary yes/no framing and demonstrates evaluative intent throughout	Partially addresses the evaluative demand, listing mechanisms without systematic assessment of their effectiveness; may drift into pure description	Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'explain'; provides only list of constitutional provisions without assessing actual accountability outcomes
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Covers multiple accountability instruments (legislative, financial, administrative) with accurate constitutional references; identifies systemic gaps like reduced sitting days and declining Question Hour productivity	Mentions major mechanisms (Question Hour, committees) but with gaps in coverage; minor inaccuracies in constitutional provisions or committee functions	Superficial treatment with major factual errors; confuses Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha roles or misidentifies committee jurisdictions
Structure & flow	20%	2	Clear tripartite structure: constitutional mandate → operational mechanisms with effectiveness assessment → concluding evaluation; smooth transitions between parliamentary tools and their limitations	Recognizable structure but uneven weightage; either over-detailed on mechanisms or abrupt shift to conclusion without analytical bridge	Disorganized or fragmented; no logical progression between points; conclusion merely restates introduction without synthesis
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Specific illustrations: 2G scam and PAC role, demonetization debate, COVID-19 virtual committee functioning, or data on declining sitting days (67 days average in 16th Lok Sabha vs 100+ in 1950s)	Generic references like 'recent scams' or 'committee reports' without specificity; or only one concrete example across the answer	No examples or irrelevant ones; uses hypothetical situations or foreign parliamentary practices without Indian context
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Nuanced verdict acknowledging Parliament's structural potential versus operational decline; suggests concrete reforms (committee strengthening, more sitting days) without being prescriptive; recognizes role of judiciary/NGOs as accountability complements	Balanced but generic conclusion ('mixed record'); limited reform suggestions or purely descriptive closing statement	Extreme or unqualified verdict ('complete failure' or 'fully effective'); no forward-looking element; conclusion absent or consists of empty rhetoric

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 →