General Studies 2024 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Elucidate

Q3

"The growth of cabinet system has practically resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

"कैबिनेट प्रणाली के विकास के परिणामस्वरूप व्यावहारिक रूप से संसदीय सर्वोच्चता हाशिए पर चली गई है।" स्पष्ट कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में लिखिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 General Studies questions

Directive word: Elucidate

This question asks you to elucidate. 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 'elucidate' demands clear explanation with logical exposition of how cabinet dominance has eroded parliamentary supremacy. Structure: brief definitional opening → mechanisms of cabinet dominance (PMO centralisation, party discipline, delegated legislation) → nuanced counter-argument (parliamentary checks remain) → balanced conclusion on transformed rather than eliminated supremacy.

Key points expected

Distinction between legal sovereignty (Parliament) and political executive dominance (Cabinet/PMO)
Mechanisms: Anti-defection law, whip system, ordinance-making power, delegated legislation proliferation
PMO concentration of power reducing Cabinet collective responsibility and parliamentary scrutiny
Counter-evidence: No-confidence motions, parliamentary committees (2012 2G JPC), judicial review constraints on executive
Synthesis: Parliamentary supremacy transformed into 'executive dominance within parliamentary framework' per Ivor Jennings' observation on Indian context

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Correctly interprets 'elucidate' as explanatory-demonstrative; explicitly addresses 'marginalisation' as partial erosion not elimination; maintains analytical tension between cabinet growth and residual parliamentary authority	Addresses cabinet dominance descriptively but treats 'marginalisation' as absolute; misses directive's demand for illuminating causal mechanisms	Misreads directive as 'critically examine' or 'evaluate'; conflates cabinet system with presidential system; ignores 'practically' qualifier in question
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately deploys constitutional provisions (Art. 74, 75, 123); distinguishes between Cabinet, Council of Ministers, and PMO; references specific institutional developments (NITI Aayog replacing Planning Commission reducing ministerial autonomy)	Generic description of cabinet dominance without constitutional anchoring; conflates parliamentary supremacy with sovereignty; omits post-2014 PMO centralisation trends	Factual errors (e.g., claiming President appoints PM without majority support); confuses British Westminster with Indian adaptations; ignores federal constraints on parliamentary supremacy
Structure & flow	20%	2	150-word precision with clear thesis-antithesis-synthesis arc; seamless transition from mechanisms of dominance to qualifying counter-trends; each sentence advances the argument	Linear description without argumentative architecture; either purely pro-dominance or purely defensive of Parliament; word count significantly under or over	Disorganised bullet points without integration; repetitive restatement of same point; abrupt ending without conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Specific illustrations: 91st Amendment (2003) strengthening anti-defection; 2016 demonetisation bypassing Parliament; 2020 farm laws ordinance precedent; Kihoto Hollohan (1992) on Speaker's role; Rajya Sabha declining relevance in money bills	Vague references to 'recent ordinances' or 'whip system' without specificity; generic British examples (Churchill, Thatcher) without Indian adaptation	No examples; irrelevant examples (US cabinet, French system); invented statistics or case law
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Nuanced synthesis: parliamentary supremacy persists legally but cabinet dominance operates politically; suggests reform (strengthening DRSCs, private members' bills) without prescription overload; acknowledges coalition vs. majority government variation	Balanced but bland conclusion ('both have importance'); no forward-looking element; simple restatement of introduction	Absolute conclusion ('Parliament is rubber stamp' or 'supremacy fully intact'); no recognition of constitutional paradox; partisan political commentary

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 →