Public Administration 2024 Paper II 50 marks Analyse

Q7

(a) The separation of police investigation and prosecution has its own benefits and challenges. Analyse in context of recent developments. (20 marks) (b) Lack of financial resources and independence in managing local funding is hindering the economic and social development of urban areas. Discuss. (20 marks) (c) National Investigation Agency (NIA) is playing an important role in countering terrorism. Comment. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) पुलिस जांच पड़ताल एवं अभियोजन का पृथक्करण के अपने लाभ तथा चुनौतियां हैं। हाल ही के घटनाक्रमों के संदर्भ में विश्लेषण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) वित्तीय संसाधनों का अभाव तथा स्थानीय वित्त पोषण के प्रबंधन की स्वतंत्रता में कमी नगरीय क्षेत्रों के आर्थिक और सामाजिक विकास में बाधा बन रही है। विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) आतंकवाद से निपटने में राष्ट्रीय जांच अभिकरण अहम भूमिका निभा रहा है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to analyse. 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 'analyse' for part (a) demands breaking down the police-prosecution separation into constituent elements with causal reasoning; parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'comment' respectively, needing balanced argumentation and evaluative observation. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks and analytical depth required, 35% to part (b) for comprehensive discussion of urban finance, and 25% to part (c) for a concise evaluative comment on NIA. Structure each part with brief introduction, multi-dimensional body addressing benefits/challenges or causes/implications, and forward-looking conclusion.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Separation under CrPC amendments (2008, 2009) and its constitutional basis; benefits include professionalized prosecution (Delhi model) and reduced police bias, challenges include coordination gaps and prosecutor quality
  • Part (a): Recent developments—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 provisions, Supreme Court directives in Mohd. Hussain case, and state variations (Maharashtra vs. Bihar experiences)
  • Part (b): Constitutional provisions—74th Amendment, 12th Schedule, Article 243W; Finance Commission recommendations (15th FC urban grants) and own revenue limitations
  • Part (b): Specific constraints—municipal bond market underdevelopment, JnNURM/Smart Cities conditionalities, and asymmetry between functional responsibilities and fiscal powers
  • Part (c): NIA Act 2008 origin post-26/11; expanded jurisdiction through 2020 amendment (human trafficking, cyber-terror, counterfeit currency); operational successes (Pathankot, Uri, Pulwama cases)
  • Part (c): Critical evaluation—federalism concerns (state consent issues), pendency rates, and need for complementary soft power strategies beyond kinetic counter-terrorism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely distinguishes between separation of powers (executive-judicial) and separation of functions (investigation-prosecution); accurately cites CrPC Sections 24-25, BNSS 2023 changes, 74th Amendment fiscal devolution provisions, and NIA Act jurisdictional scope; no conflation of NIA with NCTC or state ATSGenerally understands police-prosecution distinction and municipal finance problems but conflates NIA with broader intelligence agencies; minor errors in constitutional/statutory citationsFundamental confusion between investigation and adjudication, misidentifies 73rd vs 74th Amendment, or treats NIA as preventive intelligence agency rather than investigative body
Theoretical anchor20%10Applies Klockars' police professionalism theory for part (a); uses fiscal federalism theories (Oates' decentralization theorem, Tiebout model) for part (b); references Copenhagen School's securitization framework for part (c); integrates administrative law principles (natural justice, bias rule)Mentions relevant theories in passing without systematic application; generic reference to 'good governance' or 'rule of law' without theoretical specificityNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive treatment or irrelevant theoretical imports (e.g., using Marxist analysis inappropriately for these administrative issues)
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): Delhi's Directorate of Prosecution success vs. Bihar's implementation gaps; Malimath Committee recommendations. For (b): Ahmedabad, Pune, Hyderabad municipal bond issuances; 15th FC urban local body grants; Tamil Nadu's devolution model. For (c): Specific NIA operations—Pathankot airbase attack chargesheet, ISIS-Kerala module, Bengaluru RDX caseVague references to 'some states' or 'recent terror cases' without specificity; mentions Smart Cities Mission without detailing financial architectureNo Indian examples; relies on foreign illustrations (US police-prosecution, UK municipal finance) where Indian context is demanded; factually incorrect case references
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): Proposes prosecutorial independence through All India Judicial Service expansion, digital case management integration. For (b): Recommends municipal finance commission, property tax reforms (AMRUT 2.0 linkage), GST compensation extension for ULBs. For (c): Suggests NIA-state police MoUs, specialized terror courts, and deradicalization protocolsGeneric reform suggestions without implementation pathway; mentions 'more funds needed' or 'better coordination' without structural specificsNo reform orientation; purely critical or purely laudatory without constructive alternatives; politically partisan recommendations violating administrative neutrality
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes across all three parts to argue for institutional capacity-building as common thread; projects BNSS implementation challenges, urban agglomeration governance needs, and evolving hybrid terror threats; ends with balanced optimism on administrative reform possibilitiesSeparate conclusions for each part without cross-linkage; standard summary without projection; abrupt endingNo conclusion; trails off mid-argument; or introduces entirely new arguments in conclusion; ideological rant replacing analytical closure

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 II