Public Administration 2023 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) Accountability of the Executive to the Parliament in the domain of financial administration is secured through CAG reports. Discuss. 20 (b) The government response to the Supreme Court's judgement on Police Reforms has been lackadaisical. The reasons are multiple and multidimensional. Discuss. 20 (c) Disasters can push the world's poorest deeper into poverty. Do you think that a comprehensive strategy to deal with such vulnerabilities is required? 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) वित्तीय प्रशासन के क्षेत्र में संसद के प्रति कार्यपालिका की जवाबदेहिता नियंत्रक एवं महालेखापरीक्षक के प्रतिवेदनों के माध्यम से सुनिश्चित की जाती है। विवेचन कीजिए। 20 (b) पुलिस सुधारों पर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय पर सरकार की प्रतिक्रिया अभावपरक रही है। इसके एकाधिक एवं बहुआयामी कारण हैं। विवेचन कीजिए। 20 (c) आपदाएं विश्व के निर्धनतम लोगों को और अधिक गरीबी में धकेल सकती हैं। क्या आप समझते हैं कि ऐसी दुर्बलताओं का सामना करने के लिए एक व्यापक रणनीति की आवश्यकता है? 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Public Administration 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 directive 'discuss' demands a balanced, analytical treatment with multiple perspectives. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) [20 marks], 40% to part (b) [20 marks], and 20% to part (c) [10 marks]. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging the three distinct domains of financial accountability, police governance, and disaster vulnerability; body addressing each part sequentially with sub-headings; conclusion integrating the three themes around the broader principle of administrative accountability and citizen-centric governance.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): CAG's constitutional mandate under Articles 148-151; distinction between audit of appropriation, regularity, and performance/efficiency audit; mechanism of PAC and PAC reports in securing executive accountability; limitations like post-facto nature, non-binding recommendations, and CAG's advisory role
  • Part (a): Evolution from traditional compliance audit to outcome/performance audit (3i model); specific illustrations like CAG reports on 2G spectrum, coal block allocation, or defence procurement demonstrating how audit secures parliamentary oversight
  • Part (b): Prakash Singh judgment (2006) seven directives including fixed tenure for DGP, separation of investigation and law and order, Police Complaints Authority; subsequent judgments in 2018 and 2022 reinforcing implementation
  • Part (b): Multidimensional reasons for non-implementation—political executive resistance to losing control over 'caged parrot', federalism tensions (state subject), police as instrument of regime protection, bureaucratic inertia, and absence of political consensus
  • Part (c): Disaster-poverty nexus—vulnerability of poor due to asset location in hazard zones, informal livelihoods, lack of insurance, and weak social protection; Sendai Framework's priority on reducing disaster risk as anti-poverty strategy
  • Part (c): Comprehensive strategy elements—pre-disaster resilience (building codes, early warning), social protection floors, parametric insurance, climate adaptation integration; India's National Disaster Management Act 2005 and gaps in implementation

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Demonstrates precise understanding of CAG's constitutional position and audit types for (a); accurately identifies all seven Prakash Singh directives and their legal status for (b); correctly conceptualizes disaster vulnerability as multidimensional (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity) for (c)Basic familiarity with CAG's role but conflates audit types; mentions police reforms judgment but misses specific directives; treats disaster-poverty link descriptively without conceptual depthFundamental errors like treating CAG as part of executive, confusing Prakash Singh with other judgments, or describing disasters only as natural events without poverty linkage
Theoretical anchor20%10Applies accountability frameworks (horizontal vs vertical, answerability vs enforceability) to CAG-Parliament-Executive relations; uses governance theories (state capacity, principal-agent problems) for police reform failure; employs vulnerability/resilience theory and sustainable livelihoods framework for disaster-poverty analysisLoose reference to 'separation of powers' or 'good governance' without theoretical precision; mentions 'politicization' without theoretical grounding; uses 'sustainable development' generically for disastersNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive treatment or irrelevant theories applied mechanically
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): cites specific CAG reports (2G, coal, Rafale, GST implementation) with their parliamentary impact; for (b): compares implementation across states (Kerala's Police Act vs Gujarat's resistance); for (c): references specific disasters (Kerala floods 2018, COVID-19, Bhopal 1984) with differential poverty impactsGeneric mention of 'scams' without naming; vague reference to 'some states implemented'; general disaster examples without specificityNo Indian examples or factually incorrect references; irrelevant international examples dominating
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): evaluates CAG reforms (performance audit manual, international audit standards adoption) and proposals for CAG's binding authority; for (b): assesses Model Police Act 2006, proposed Police Bureau of India, and political solutions; for (c): analyzes Sendai Framework implementation, National Disaster Response Fund reforms, and climate-resilient infrastructureMentions need for 'strengthening CAG' or 'implementing reforms' without specifics; lists police reform committees without analysis; suggests 'better disaster management' genericallyNo reform discussion or purely critical stance without constructive alternatives; ignores existing policy frameworks
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes three domains around the meta-theme of institutional accountability in Indian democracy; proposes integrated approach linking financial accountability, security sector governance, and disaster resilience as pillars of administrative state capacity; offers realistic yet aspirational forward agendaSummarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on 'need for political will' or 'better implementation'No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body; purely rhetorical closing without substantive forward look

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