General Studies 2023 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q5

Discuss the role of Presiding Officers of state legislatures in maintaining order and impartiality in conducting legislative work and in facilitating best democratic practices. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

विधायी कार्यों के संचालन में व्यवस्था एवं निष्पक्षता बनाए रखने में और सबसे लोकतांत्रिक परंपराओं को सुगम बनाने में राज्य विधानिकाओं के पीठासीन अधिकारियों की भूमिका की विवेचना कीजिए। (150 शब्दों में उत्तर) 10

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' requires a balanced examination of multiple facets of the Presiding Officers' role. Structure: brief introduction defining Presiding Officers (Speaker/Chairman) → body covering order maintenance, impartiality, and democratic facilitation with constitutional provisions → conclusion on evolving challenges. Keep each aspect concise within 150 words.

Key points expected

Constitutional position under Articles 178, 179, 189 and their oath of impartiality under Article 188
Powers to maintain order: suspension of members, adjournment, expunging remarks, certifying Money Bills
Impartiality mechanisms: casting vote only in case of tie, not participating in debates, all-party meetings
Democratic facilitation: ensuring opposition voice, referring bills to committees, protecting legislative privileges
Recent challenges: partisan perception, defection rulings, disruption management (e.g., Maharashtra 2021, Karnataka 2019)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Covers all three mandated aspects—order maintenance, impartiality, and democratic facilitation—with equal weightage; recognizes 'discuss' requires multi-faceted exposition rather than mere description	Covers two of three aspects adequately; treats question as descriptive rather than analytical; minor imbalance in coverage	Misses one or more core aspects; confuses with Parliament's Presiding Officers only; treats as 'enumerate' or 'describe' narrowly
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately cites constitutional provisions (Articles 178-180, 189, 212); distinguishes Speaker vs Chairman roles; mentions specific powers like Rule 374A for suspension	Generic mention of 'constitutional powers' without specific articles; conflates Lok Sabha and state legislature provisions; minor factual errors	No constitutional references; confuses with Governor's legislative role; significant factual inaccuracies about powers
Structure & flow	20%	2	Clear tripartite structure with visible transitions; 150-word discipline maintained; each paragraph serves distinct function; logical progression from powers to challenges	Readable but uneven paragraphing; some repetition between order and impartiality sections; word count slightly off	Disorganized listing; no paragraph breaks; exceeds word limit significantly or falls substantially short; abrupt ending
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	References specific instances: Maharashtra Speaker's 2022 ruling on disqualification, Karnataka 2019 floor test, or Kihoto Hollohan (1992) on Speaker's power in defection; mentions SR Bommai or Nabam Rebia principles	Vague reference to 'recent disruptions' or 'defection cases' without specifics; only generic 'like in some states'	No examples; irrelevant examples from Parliament only; incorrect case citations
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Critical insight on tension between Speaker's party affiliation and constitutional duty; suggests reform (separate constitutional court for disqualification); or notes increasing judicial intervention	Balanced summary without new insight; generic statement on 'need for impartiality'	No conclusion; abrupt end; purely descriptive closing; suggests impractical reforms

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 →