(a) Parliamentary committees are indispensable to the legislative process. It provides for the opportunity for cross-pollination…

(a) Parliamentary committees are indispensable to the legislative process. It provides for the opportunity for cross-pollination between the two chambers of the Parliament. Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Examine the constitutional provisions and nature of advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India. Evaluate your answer with relevant examples. (15 marks) (c) The recent developments in Indian Politics has not eroded the true spirit of federalism in India. Critically examine this statement with the help of appropriate examples. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) संसदीय समितियाँ विधायी प्रक्रिया के लिए अनिवार्य हैं। यह संसद के दोनों सदनों के बीच पारस्परिक परागण (क्रॉस-पॉलिनेशन) के अवसर प्रदान करती है। विवेचन कीजिए। (20) (b) भारतीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सलाहकारी क्षेत्राधिकार की प्रकृति तथा संवैधानिक प्रावधानों का परीक्षण कीजिए । अपने उत्तर का समुचित उदाहरणों द्वारा मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (15) (c) भारतीय राजनीति में हाल में हुए परिवर्तनों ने संघवाद की भावना को भारत से बिनष्ट नहीं होने दिया है । इस कथन का समुचित उदाहरणों द्वारा आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । (15)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Political Science & IR 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 primary directive is 'discuss' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'examine' and 'critically examine' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time and words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then dedicated sections for each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects parliamentary oversight, judicial review, and federal balance as pillars of Indian constitutional democracy.

Key points expected

Part (a): Analysis of how parliamentary committees (DRSCs, PAC, Estimates Committee) enable detailed scrutiny bypassing partisan floor politics, with specific mechanisms of cross-chamber collaboration like Joint Parliamentary Committees
Part (a): Evaluation of 'cross-pollination' through joint sittings, referrals between Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha committees, and the role of Rajya Sabha members in Lok Sabha-dominated committees post-1993 reforms
Part (b): Constitutional basis of advisory jurisdiction under Article 143, distinction between binding opinions (Article 143(1)) and non-binding (Article 143(2)), and procedural requirements
Part (b): Critical evaluation through specific cases: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal reference (1992), Ayodhya reference (1993), 2G spectrum presidential reference (2012), and the 2015 NJAC reference
Part (c): Critical examination of federalism erosion claims through GST Council functioning, Article 356 usage patterns (Uttarakhand 2016, Arunachal 2016, J&K 2018), and COVID-19 period centralization
Part (c): Counter-arguments showing federal resilience: cooperative federalism institutions, Finance Commission devolution trends, Supreme Court's 'basic structure' protection in S.R. Bommai, and asymmetric federalism accommodations

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Demonstrates precise calibration: for (a) 'discuss' yields balanced exploration of committee indispensability AND cross-chamber dynamics; for (b) 'examine' produces systematic constitutional-provision-to-practice mapping with evaluative depth; for (c) 'critically examine' generates thesis-antithesis-synthesis on federalism rather than one-sided assertion	Addresses all three parts but with directive confusion—treats 'discuss' as mere description, 'examine' as simple explanation, or 'critically examine' as pure criticism without balanced assessment	Misidentifies directives entirely or ignores sub-part distinctions; writes generic essay on parliamentary committees without addressing 'cross-pollination' or conflates advisory jurisdiction with appellate jurisdiction
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Displays command across all three domains: for (a) cites specific committees (DRSC-I to DRSC-XXIV, PAC, Estimates) and their composition rules; for (b) accurately distinguishes Article 143(1) vs 143(2), references 44th Amendment implications; for (c) deploys post-2014 federalism scholarship (NITI Aayog vs Planning Commission, GST compensation disputes)	Covers all sub-parts with generally accurate information but lacks specificity—mentions 'committees' without naming types, conflates advisory with consultative jurisdiction, or cites federalism examples without constitutional articles	Significant factual errors: confuses Standing Committees with Ad Hoc Committees, states advisory opinions are binding under Article 143, or makes anachronistic federalism claims (e.g., Punjab 1984 as 'recent development')
Structure & flow	20%	10	Employs clear tripartite architecture with explicit sub-headings (a), (b), (c); maintains internal coherence within each part—(a) flows from committee functions to inter-chamber mechanisms, (b) moves from constitutional text to nature to evaluation, (c) structures as balanced debate with evidence-weighted conclusion; smooth transitions between parts	Attempts three-part division but with uneven development—part (a) disproportionately long, parts (b) and (c) compressed; or merges parts confusingly; paragraphs lack topic sentences linking back to specific directive demands	Unstructured narrative without sub-part identification; random interweaving of committee, court, and federalism content; no discernible introduction or conclusion; illegible paragraphing under exam pressure
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	Rich evidentiary base: for (a) cites 1993 committee system reforms, specific JPCs (2G, Harshad Mehta, Bofors); for (b) references Re Kerala Education Bill (1958), Re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1992), Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly dissolution), 2G spectrum reference (2012); for (c) deploys Article 356 proclamation data 2014-2024, GST revenue shortfall figures, 15th Finance Commission recommendations	Provides some examples but with gaps—generic mention of '2G case' without specifying presidential reference, or 'GST' without Council functioning details; examples may be misdated or misattributed	Virtually example-free or relies on incorrect/invented cases; confuses Supreme Court advisory opinions with landmark judgments (Kesavananda, Minerva Mills); cites pre-2014 developments as 'recent' for part (c)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes three strands into coherent thesis: parliamentary committees as sites of deliberative democracy transcending majoritarianism, advisory jurisdiction as constitutional safety valve preventing political crises, federalism as dynamic equilibrium despite centralizing pressures—demonstrates awareness of contemporary relevance (simultaneous elections debate, ECI appointments, Delhi-NCT status)	Summarizes each part separately without integration; offers generic conclusion on 'importance of constitutional institutions' without specific contemporary anchoring; misses opportunity to connect committee decline (reduced sittings, ordinance proliferation) with federalism centralization trends	Absent or abrupt conclusion; mere restatement of question; or conclusion that contradicts body of answer; introduces entirely new arguments in conclusion without development

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 →