Public Administration 2022 Paper II 50 marks Examine

Q4

(a) "The Indian judicial system has failed to deliver justice expeditiously". Examine the challenges faced by the judiciary and suggest measures to overcome them. 20 (b) Analyse the specific areas of controversies with regard to Union-State financial relations, particularly in the context of one nation – one tax policy. 20 (c) Examine the role of central government in adjudication of disputes relating to water of interstate rivers. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "भारतीय न्यायिक व्यवस्था शीघ्र न्याय प्रदान करने में असफल रही है"। न्यायपालिका के सम्मुख चुनौतियों का परीक्षण कीजिए तथा उन्हें दूर करने के उपाय भी सुझाइए। 20 (b) एक राष्ट्र – एक कर नीति के विशेष संदर्भ में संघ-राज्य वित्तीय संबंधों से संबंधित विवादों के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों का विश्लेषण कीजिए। 20 (c) अंतर्राज्यीय नदियों के पानी से संबंधित विवादों के न्याय-निर्णय में केंद्रीय सरकार की भूमिका का परीक्षण कीजिए। 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Public Administration questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. 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 'examine' for part (a) and 'analyse' for part (b) demand critical investigation with evidence-based reasoning. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 40% to part (b) for equal weightage, and 20% to part (c). Structure: brief introduction acknowledging the interconnectedness of constitutional governance mechanisms; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing how judicial efficiency, fiscal federalism, and water dispute resolution collectively strengthen cooperative federalism.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Pendency crisis statistics (5+ crore cases), judge-population ratio deficit, infrastructure gaps, and structural delays in appointment (Collegium vs NJAC tension)
  • For (a): E-courts, Lok Adalats, Fast Track Courts, and ADR mechanisms as reform pathways; mention 230th Law Commission Report
  • For (b): GST Council composition and voting dynamics revealing asymmetry; 101st Constitutional Amendment implications for fiscal autonomy
  • For (b): Surcharge/cess proliferation bypassing divisible pool; Finance Commission vertical vs horizontal distribution tensions; GST compensation cess discontinuation controversy
  • For (c): Article 262 and Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956; Tribunal mechanism and recent River Boards Act push
  • For (c): Cauvery, Krishna, Mahanadi disputes showing central government's limited adjudicatory role vs Supreme Court's expanding jurisdiction (Cauvery verdict 2018)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Accurately distinguishes between judicial administration challenges (case management, vacancies) and judicial independence issues; correctly identifies GST as destination-based tax with dual levy structure; precisely locates water disputes under Article 262 vs Article 131 original jurisdiction distinctionMixes pendency with backlog concepts; conflates GST Council with Finance Commission functions; treats central government as adjudicator rather than tribunal-constituting authority under Article 262Fundamental errors like attributing GST to 73rd/74th Amendment; describes water disputes under Article 356; confuses Lok Adalats with Gram Nyayalayas
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys K.C. Wheare's cooperative federalism for GST tensions; uses C. Rajagopalachari's 'judicial delay is denial of justice'; references S.P. Sathe on judicial accountability; applies Amartya Sen's 'capability approach' for access to justiceGeneric mention of federalism without theoretical specificity; uses basic separation of powers doctrine without application to judicial delaysNo theoretical framework; misattributes concepts (e.g., Montesquieu for Indian federalism)
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): NJAC 2014 judgment (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association), Allahabad HC 5-year average disposal data, e-Courts Phase II; For (b): 15th Finance Commission recommendations, Kerala's GST compensation protests, Tamil Nadu's cesses on petrol/diesel; For (c): Cauvery Water Management Authority, Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II, recent Ravi-Beas tribunal revivalVague reference to 'many pending cases' or 'some river disputes'; mentions GST without specific state examplesNo concrete examples; fictional or grossly incorrect references (e.g., Yamuna tribunal under central government direct control)
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): AI in case allocation (SUPACE), evening courts, pre-litigation mediation mandate; For (b): GST 2.0 reforms, revenue-neutral rate recalibration, permanent Finance Commission institutionalization; For (c): Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill 2019 provisions for single tribunal with benches, River Basin Management approachStandard suggestions like 'more judges' or 'better cooperation' without policy specificity; mentions GST Council meetings without reform contentConstitutionally impossible suggestions (abolishing GST Council unilaterally); no awareness of existing reform initiatives like National Judicial Data Grid
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes three domains through 'institutional capacity-building for federal governance' theme; proposes integrated dispute resolution architecture linking judicial, fiscal and water mechanisms; references SDG 16 (peace, justice, strong institutions) or 2030 agendaSeparate concluding sentences for each part without integration; generic 'need for political will' endingNo conclusion; abrupt ending; or conclusion contradicting body (e.g., calling for unitary solutions after federalism analysis)

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 →

More from Public Administration 2022 Paper II