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

Q4

"The duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not merely to ensure the legality of expenditure but also its propriety." Comment. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

"नियंत्रक एवं महालेखा परीक्षक का कर्तव्य केवल व्यय की वैधता सुनिश्चित करना ही नहीं बल्कि उसका औचित्य भी सुनिश्चित करना है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में लिखिए)

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

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' requires a balanced, opinionated analysis rather than mere description. Structure as: brief constitutional position of CAG → distinction between legality (compliance with rules) and propriety (wisdom, economy, efficiency) → examples of propriety audit → critical assessment of CAG's expanded role with limitations.

Key points expected

Constitutional basis: Article 149 and CAG's (DPC) Act 1971 defining audit scope
Legality audit: Voucher audit ensuring expenditure conforms to appropriation acts and financial rules
Propriety audit: 'Three Es' - economy, efficiency, effectiveness; value-for-money audit beyond mere regularity
Specific examples: 2G spectrum allocation report (2010), Coalgate report (2012), or defence procurement audits showing propriety concerns
Limitations: CAG's recommendations are not binding; executive can disagree; distinction between audit and policy-making
Balanced conclusion: Propriety audit strengthens accountability but requires restraint to avoid overreach into policy domain

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Clearly distinguishes 'comment' from 'examine' or 'analyse' by offering a nuanced, opinionated stance that weighs both necessity and risks of propriety audit without becoming purely descriptive	Attempts some opinion but largely describes CAG functions; conflates legality and propriety without clear analytical separation	Treats as 'describe' or 'explain' question with no evaluative element; fails to address the 'not merely' emphasis in the statement
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Precisely defines propriety audit (3Es), cites correct constitutional provisions, and accurately captures the evolution from compliance audit to performance/value-for-money audit	Basic understanding of CAG role but vague on propriety; confuses CAG with Public Accounts Committee functions or misstates constitutional articles	Fundamental errors: equates CAG with judiciary, claims CAG can stop expenditure, or omits propriety dimension entirely
Structure & flow	20%	2	Tight 150-word structure with clear progression: constitutional mandate → conceptual distinction → exemplification → critical balance; each paragraph serves distinct purpose	Loose structure with some repetition; legality and propriety discussed but not clearly demarcated; conclusion merely summarises	Disorganised or incomplete; missing introduction or conclusion; exceeds word limit significantly or far too brief
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Specific, high-impact example (2G/Coal/Defence) demonstrating how propriety audit uncovered systemic issues; or references CAG reports on GST implementation, DRDO procurement, etc.	Generic mention of 'scams' without specificity; or outdated/irrelevant examples; no quantitative element like estimated losses	No examples at all; or factually wrong examples (attributing CAG functions to CVC or CBI); irrelevant international comparisons without Indian context
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Sophisticated conclusion acknowledging tension: propriety audit essential for accountability but requires institutional restraint to preserve separation of functions; may reference 73rd CAG report on FRBM or recent Supreme Court observations	Safe, balanced conclusion without depth; merely restates that both dimensions are important	No conclusion; or one-sided advocacy (CAG should have more powers / CAG overreaches) without nuance; abrupt ending

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 →