Public Administration 2024 Paper II 50 marks Critically examine

Q8

(a) Police-Public relations are poor in India. What measures are required to strengthen these relations? (20 marks) (b) The office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and its functioning is away from the public eye. Still it is one of the most important office under the constitution. Discuss. (20 marks) (c) Critically examine the problems of administration in coalition regimes. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारत में पुलिस-जनता संबंध खराब हैं। इन संबंधों को मजबूत करने के लिए किन उपायों की आवश्यकता है ? (20 अंक) (b) नियंत्रक एवं महालेखापरीक्षक का कार्यालय और इसकी कार्यप्रणाली जनता की नजरों से दूर होती है। फिर भी संविधान के तहत यह सबसे महत्वपूर्ण कार्यालयों में से एक है। विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) गठबंधन शासनों में प्रशासन की समस्याओं का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically 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 question demands critical examination across three distinct areas: police-public relations (20 marks), CAG's constitutional role (20 marks), and coalition administration problems (10 marks). Allocate approximately 40% word/time to part (a) covering colonial legacy, trust deficit and community policing reforms; 35% to part (b) explaining CAG's independence, audit types and recent visibility efforts; and 25% to part (c) analyzing instability, policy paralysis and federal tensions. Structure with brief introductions for each part, analytical body addressing both dimensions of 'critical' examination, and integrated conclusion emphasizing democratic accountability.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Colonial legacy of police as 'ruler's instrument', structural issues like overwork, politicization, lack of accountability; specific reforms including community policing models (Janamaithri, Mohalla committees), SMART policing, Police Act reforms, use of technology for transparency
  • Part (a): Psychological barriers, fear psychosis, VIP culture diversion; need for attitudinal change, training in soft skills, grievance redressal mechanisms like Police Complaints Authorities
  • Part (b): Constitutional provisions (Articles 148-151), independence safeguards (removal process, salary charged on Consolidated Fund), distinction between CAG and UK Comptroller role
  • Part (b): Types of audit (financial, compliance, performance/efficiency), recent high-impact reports (Rafale, demonetization, GST, COVID procurement) demonstrating increasing public visibility
  • Part (b): Limitations of CAG functioning—post-facto nature, lack of enforceability, government non-acceptance of recommendations; need for real-time audit and media engagement
  • Part (c): Coalition compulsions—policy paralysis due to conflicting manifestos, ministerial instability affecting bureaucratic continuity, pork-barrel politics and regional fragmentation
  • Part (c): Federal tensions in coalition era, role of regional parties in national governance, anti-defection law's limited efficacy; comparison with Westminster stability vs. Indian experience

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Accurately distinguishes between CAG's audit, accounting and advisory functions; correctly identifies police-public relations as governance-citizen interface issue; precisely defines coalition administration challenges including collective responsibility dilemmasBasic understanding of CAG's role but conflates audit types; describes police problems superficially without structural analysis; mentions coalition instability without explaining administrative implicationsConfuses CAG with Election Commission or Finance Commission; treats police-public relations as purely law-and-order issue; describes coalition politics without administrative dimension
Theoretical anchor20%10Applies Robert Peel's principles for part (a); uses principal-agent theory and accountability literature for CAG; employs coalition theory (Riker, Axelrod) and veto player theory for part (c)Mentions Peelian principles or accountability concepts without integration; generic reference to 'checks and balances' for CAG; describes coalition problems empirically without theoretical framingNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive approach across all parts; confuses concepts from different administrative theories
Indian administrative examples20%10Cites specific community policing models (Janamaithri in Kerala, Mohalla committees post-1993 Mumbai); references specific CAG reports (2G spectrum, coal block allocation, Rafale); illustrates coalition problems with UPA-II or recent state examplesGeneric mention of police reforms without specific models; knows CAG is constitutional body but no specific audit examples; mentions instability without concrete coalition instancesNo Indian examples; uses foreign illustrations inappropriately; factually incorrect examples (e.g., CAG as executive body)
Reform / policy angle20%10Evaluates Model Police Act 2006, Supreme Court directives in Prakash Singh case; assesses CAG's 2016 transparency initiatives and proposed CAG Act amendments; analyzes recommendations for stable coalition mechanismsLists reforms without evaluation; mentions Police Commission reports without relevance; describes CAG functioning without reform suggestionsNo reform perspective; purely critical without constructive suggestions; advocates unconstitutional solutions
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes three parts around democratic accountability theme; proposes integrated approach linking police accountability, audit transparency and coalition stability for effective governance; suggests role of technology and citizen engagementSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic summary without forward-looking element; abrupt endingNo conclusion; incomplete answer; conclusion contradicts main arguments

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