Public Administration 2024 Paper I 50 marks Comment

Q3

(a) Strengthening social audit through appropriate ways will promote inclusive government. Comment. (20 marks) (b) The development of administrative law in Welfare State has made administrative tribunals a necessity. Examine. (15 marks) (c) Ineffectiveness of legislative control over administration can stem from various factors, hence in ensuring effectiveness a comprehensive approach is the need of the hour. Discuss. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) सामाजिक अंकेक्षण को उचित तरीकों से मजबूत करने से समावेशी सरकार को बढ़ावा मिलेगा। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) कल्याणकारी राज्य में प्रशासनिक विधि के विकास ने प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरणों को एक आवश्यकता बना दिया है। परीक्षण कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) प्रशासन पर विधायी नियंत्रण की अप्रभाविता विभिन्न कारकों से उत्पन्न हो सकती है, इसलिए प्रभावशीलता सुनिश्चित करने के लिए एक व्यापक दृष्टिकोण समय की माँग है। विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Public Administration 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 primary directive is 'comment' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'examine' and 'discuss' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings → synthesized conclusion linking social audit, tribunal reforms, and legislative oversight as pillars of administrative accountability.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Define social audit and its linkage to inclusive government through citizen participation, transparency, and accountability; cite MGNREGA Social Audit Units, Meghalaya's Community Led Monitoring, or Kerala's People's Campaign for Decentralized Planning
  • Part (a): Identify strengthening mechanisms—legal backing (Social Audit Law in Rajasthan), institutional independence, capacity building of auditors, integration with RTI, and use of technology (Social Audit App)
  • Part (b): Trace evolution from Dicey's rule of law to welfare state functions; explain how administrative law expansion created need for specialized, speedy, inexpensive justice outside ordinary courts
  • Part (b): Discuss tribunal necessity through examples—CAT, SAT, NCLT, NGT; reference 42nd Amendment (Article 323A/B) and Supreme Court rulings in S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) and R.K. Jain (1993) on tribunal autonomy
  • Part (c): Analyze legislative control ineffectiveness—anti-defection law weakening Parliament, lack of specialized committees, executive dominance, inadequate follow-up on PAC/CAG recommendations
  • Part (c): Propose comprehensive reforms—strengthening DRSCs, pre-legislative scrutiny, sunset clauses, outcome-based monitoring, and institutionalizing social audit findings into legislative oversight

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines social audit (citizen-led verification of public records), distinguishes administrative tribunals from ordinary courts and quasi-judicial bodies, and correctly identifies legislative control mechanisms (questions, debates, committees, CAG oversight) across all three parts without conflationBasic definitions provided but some confusion between social audit and financial audit, or between tribunals and commissions; legislative control mechanisms listed without functional differentiationMisidentifies social audit as government internal audit, confuses tribunals with civil courts, or conflates legislative control with judicial review; fundamental conceptual errors
Theoretical anchor20%10For (a): cites Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation/Fung's 'Real Utopias'; for (b): deploys Dicey, Robson, or Wade on administrative law evolution; for (c): references Wilson's politics-administration dichotomy or Meijer's parliamentary control models; integrates theory seamlesslyMentions some theorists or concepts but superficially; for example, names Dicey without explaining shift to welfare state functions, or cites participation theory without linking to inclusive governanceNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive answer or irrelevant theories cited; fails to connect welfare state expansion to tribunal necessity or democratic theory to social audit
Indian administrative examples20%10Rich, specific illustrations: for (a)—Andhra Pradesh's Social Audit Directorate, MKSS's Jan Sunwai; for (b)—CAT's 19 benches, NGT's environmental jurisprudence, recent Finance Act tribunal mergers; for (c)—2nd ARC recommendations, specific CAG reports tabled but unaddressed, PAC performance on 2G/CoalGeneric references like 'MGNREGA audits exist' or 'CAT was established'; mentions tribunals without specificity; legislative control limited to 'Parliament asks questions' without concrete committee examplesNo Indian examples, or factually wrong ones (e.g., claiming social audit is mandatory under RTI Act, or that tribunals replace High Courts entirely); irrelevant international examples dominating
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): proposes Social Audit Legislation (Andhra Pradesh model nationalized), institutional independence from implementing agencies; for (b): suggests tribunal service, uniformity through Administrative Tribunals Act amendments, digital case management; for (c): recommends sunset legislation, pre-legislative scrutiny strengthening, DRSC empowerment with 2nd ARC specifics; actionable and coherentGeneric reform suggestions like 'more transparency needed' or 'tribunals should be efficient'; some mention of 2nd ARC but without specific recommendations; reforms not tailored to identified problemsNo reform suggestions, or completely unrealistic ones; ignores existing reform frameworks (2nd ARC, LCI reports); reform suggestions contradict constitutional scheme (e.g., abolishing tribunals entirely)
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes three mechanisms as complementary accountability pillars—social audit (bottom-up), tribunals (remedial), legislative control (top-down)—in democratic governance; forward look connects to SDG 16 (inclusive institutions), digital governance opportunities, and cautions against tribunal over-judicialization; memorable closingSummarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on 'good governance needed'; some forward reference but disconnected from question specificsNo conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely repeats introduction; no forward-looking element; or conclusion addresses only one sub-part ignoring others

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 2024 Paper I