General Studies 2023 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Explain

Q16

Explain the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial committees helped in the institutionalisation of Indian Parliament? (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

संसदीय समिति प्रणाली की संरचना को समझाइए। भारतीय संसद के संस्थानीकरण में वित्तीय समितियों ने कहाँ तक मदद की? (250 शब्दों में उत्तर) 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' requires a systematic exposition of the Parliamentary Committee structure followed by an analytical assessment of financial committees' role in institutionalising Parliament. Structure: brief introduction defining committees → first part covering classification (Standing vs Ad-hoc, Financial vs Department-related) with composition → second part evaluating financial committees' impact → balanced conclusion on achievements and limitations.

Key points expected

Classification: Standing (Financial, DRSCs, Others) vs Ad-hoc committees; mention of 24 DRSCs, 3 Financial committees
Financial committees: PAC (Chair: LoP, CAG reports), Estimates Committee (Chair: ruling party), CoPU; their specific mandates
Institutionalisation mechanisms: post-budget scrutiny, CAG report examination, recommendation implementation, executive accountability
Quantitative/qualitative impact: PAC examined 301+ CAG reports (2014-2024), saved ₹1.5 lakh crore through recommendations; but limited binding powers
Limitations: recommendations non-binding, low implementation rate (~15%), declining sitting days, partisan functioning in recent years
Comparative context: contrast with UK PAC's stronger powers; suggest reforms like mandatory government response timeline

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly bifurcates answer into two distinct parts—first explaining structural classification with precise constitutional/statutory basis, then critically evaluating financial committees' institutionalisation role rather than merely describing functions	Addresses both parts but conflates structure with evaluation; treats financial committees descriptively without analytical assessment of 'how far'	Misses the dual demand entirely—either describes only structure or only financial committees; confuses 'institutionalisation' with 'functioning'
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately names all 3 financial committees with correct Chair provisions (PAC: LoP, EC: ruling party), mentions 22 DRSCs post-2021 reorganisation, cites specific constitutional provisions (Articles 105, 118 for rules; Rule 308 of Lok Sabha)	Identifies major committees but errs on Chair provisions or DRSC numbers; vague on constitutional basis; mixes up PAC and EC functions	Major factual errors—wrong committee classification, incorrect Chair details, confuses Standing with Select committees; no constitutional/statutory references
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: definitional opening → hierarchical classification (Standing→Financial/DRSCs/Others) with visual clarity → transition to evaluation → thematic analysis of institutionalisation (transparency, accountability, expertise) → synthesis conclusion	Readable structure but uneven weightage—either over-detailed on structure leaving no space for evaluation, or abrupt transitions; paragraphs lack thematic unity	Disorganised—random listing of committees, no paragraph coherence, missing clear part-division, conclusion absent or repetitive of introduction
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific illustrations: 2G spectrum PAC report (2010-14), Rafale PAC examination, COVID-19 economic package scrutiny by EC; quantitative data on reports examined, recommendations accepted, money saved; compares UK PAC's follow-through mechanism	Generic mention of 'CAG reports examined' without specifics; no data on implementation rates; one dated example (e.g., Bofors) without contemporary reference	No examples or data; or irrelevant examples (committees in state legislatures, Rajya Sabha vs Lok Sabha strength); fabricated statistics
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Balanced verdict: acknowledges institutionalisation through post-1993 reforms and PAC activism, but notes 'accountability gap' from non-binding status; suggests actionable reforms (Departmentally Related Standing Committees for states, mandatory response timeline) without being prescriptive	Safe summary restating points; either wholly celebratory ('great success') or wholly critical ('toothless'); no reform suggestions or forward-looking element	No conclusion or abrupt ending; contradictory verdict; generic platitudes ('committees are backbone of democracy'); 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 →