Public Administration 2023 Paper II 50 marks Elucidate

Q2

(a) "Indian Prime Minister is more empowered than his British counterpart in the Westminster model of democracy." Elucidate. 20 (b) Post-amendment period Panchayats have become a platform of competitive politics, but could not emerge as an agency of planning and service delivery. Examine. 20 (c) Former Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra observed : "An efficient judiciary is the hallmark of a great nation." Comment. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "लोकतंत्र के वेस्टमिन्स्टर मॉडल के अनुसार भारतीय प्रधानमंत्री अपने ब्रिटिश समकक्ष की तुलना में अधिक सशक्त हैं।" विस्तार से समझाइए । 20 (b) संशोधन उपरांत अवधि में पंचायतें प्रतिस्पर्धी राजनीति का एक मंच तो बन गई हैं, लेकिन नियोजन एवं सेवा प्रदाता के कारक के रूप में नहीं उभर पाई हैं । परीक्षण कीजिए । 20 (c) भारत के पूर्व मुख्य न्यायाधीश दीपक मिश्रा ने अवलोकन किया : "दक्ष न्यायपालिका एक महान राष्ट्र की कसौटी होती है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए । 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Public Administration 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 evidence. For part (a) [20 marks], compare PM powers across both systems using constitutional provisions; for (b) [20 marks], 'examine' requires critical analysis of 73rd Amendment implementation gaps; for (c) [10 marks], 'comment' needs contextualized reflection on judicial efficiency. Allocate approximately 40% time/words to (a), 40% to (b), and 20% to (c). Structure: thematic introduction → three separate sections with sub-headings → integrated conclusion linking all three to democratic governance.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Art. 74 vs. British convention; Indian PM's dominance through cabinet appointment/dismissal, dissolution power, anti-defection law; British PM's constraints from party discipline, Brexit parliamentary sovereignty
  • For (a): Presidential system elements in India—single-party majority, ordinance power, emergency provisions; British coalition compulsions under Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
  • For (b): 73rd Amendment provisions—11th Schedule, State Finance Commissions, DPCs; politicization via party-based elections, criminalization, caste factionalism
  • For (b): Planning failures—lack of genuine devolution (3Fs: functions, functionaries, funds), bureaucratic resistance, absence of district planning committees' activation; contrast Kerala's People's Plan Campaign vs. Bihar's weak implementation
  • For (c): Judicial efficiency metrics—pendency (5+ crore cases), judge-population ratio (19 per million vs. recommended 50), infrastructure deficit; link to economic growth, rule of law, social cohesion
  • For (c): Reforms—e-courts, Lok Adalats, NJAC debate, All India Judicial Service; balance efficiency with independence concerns

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely distinguishes de jure vs. de facto PM powers in both systems; accurately identifies 73rd Amendment constitutional provisions and their operational distortions; correctly defines judicial efficiency beyond speed to include accessibility, affordability, and qualityBasic comparison of PM powers without nuance; lists 73rd Amendment features without analyzing implementation gap; describes judicial pendency without systemic analysis of efficiency dimensionsConfuses Indian and British PM powers; mistakes 73rd for 74th Amendment; equates judicial efficiency only with fast disposal; factual errors in constitutional articles
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys K.C. Wheare's 'cabinet government' vs. 'prime ministerial government'; uses Lijphart's majoritarian vs. consensus democracy; applies Gramsci's 'passive revolution' for Panchayat co-optation; references Baxi's 'efficiency-oriented judiciary' critiqueMentions Westminster model without theoretical depth; uses basic decentralization theory without critical frameworks; cites generic rule of law theory for judiciaryNo theoretical framework; confuses federalism with decentralization; purely descriptive without analytical lens
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): Indira Gandhi's emergency centralization vs. Blair's 'sofa government'; for (b): Kerala's People's Plan (1996-2001), West Bengal's Operation Barga, Madhya Pradesh's district planning experiments; for (c): E-courts Phase III, Fast Track Courts, Tribunals Reforms Act 2021Generic mention of 'some states' for Panchayats; routine examples of PM power without specificity; standard pendency statistics without reform examplesNo Indian examples; hypothetical illustrations; anachronistic or incorrect case references
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): Proposes codifying PM powers, strengthening parliamentary committees; for (b): Suggests 6th SFC recommendations implementation, activity mapping, capacity building through RGSA; for (c): Recommends AI in courts, ADR expansion, judicial impact assessment, NJAC revival with safeguardsRoutine suggestions for more funds to Panchayats; generic 'computerization' for judiciary; no structural reform proposals for PM accountabilityNo reform suggestions; unrealistic or unconstitutional proposals; conflates problems with solutions
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes all three parts into coherent argument about democratic deepening—PM power needs institutionalized accountability, Panchayats require genuine autonomy not competitive capture, judiciary must balance efficiency with independence; ends with 2047 governance visionSummarizes each part separately without integration; routine 'need for political will' conclusion; no forward-looking elementNo conclusion; abrupt ending; contradictory final statements; ignores one or more parts

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 2023 Paper II