Public Administration 2025 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q6

(a) Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) does not effectively address local level issues. Give your opinion. (20 marks) (b) Do you think 'Aadhaar' initiative has promoted inclusive governance and administrative credibility? Throw light. (20 marks) (c) Smart Policing and Community Policing programmes have been initiated to address socio-technological challenges in law and order. Discuss. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) केन्द्रीकृत लोक शिकायत निवारण एवं निगरानी प्रणाली (CPGRAMS) स्थानीय स्तर की समस्याओं का प्रभावी रूप से समाधान नहीं करती। अपने विचार प्रकट कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) क्या आपके विचार में 'आधार' योजना ने समावेशी शासन और प्रशासनिक विश्वसनीयता को बढ़ावा दिया है? प्रकाश डालिए। (20 अंक) (c) स्मार्ट पुलिस व सामुदायिक पुलिस कार्यक्रम कानून और व्यवस्था की सामाजिक-तकनीकी चुनौतियों को हल करने के लिए आरम्भ किए गए हैं। विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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 evidence-based arguments across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) on CPGRAMS given its 20 marks and evaluative nature requiring critical opinion; 35% to part (b) on Aadhaar for its dual assessment of inclusive governance and credibility; and 25% to part (c) on policing initiatives. Structure each part with brief context, multi-dimensional analysis, and a micro-conclusion before synthesizing all three in a final forward-looking conclusion.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): CPGRAMS limitations in local grievance redressal — structural centralization vs. local self-governance needs, last-mile connectivity gaps, and comparison with state-level portals like Jansunwai (UP) or CM Helpline (MP)
  • Part (a): Counter-arguments on CPGRAMS effectiveness — integration with Digital India, Sevottam reforms, and data-driven monitoring of redressal timelines
  • Part (b): Aadhaar's inclusive governance contribution — financial inclusion through DBT, Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile (JAM) trinity, reduced leakage in PDS and MGNREGA
  • Part (b): Administrative credibility dimensions — biometric de-duplication, ghost beneficiary elimination, but also concerns about exclusion errors, privacy risks, and Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment balancing act
  • Part (c): Smart Policing components — CCTNS, ICJS integration, predictive policing, cybercrime units; Community Policing models — Maithri (Kerala), Friends of Police (Tamil Nadu), Jan Sampark (Rajasthan)
  • Part (c): Socio-technological synergy — how technology-enabled community engagement addresses trust deficit, communal harmony, and cyber-physical security challenges

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines CPGRAMS architecture (PG Portal, Sevottam framework), Aadhaar's statutory basis (Aadhaar Act 2016), and distinguishes Smart Policing (technology-driven) from Community Policing (people-centric); no conflation of termsBasic definitions present but lacks clarity on institutional mechanisms; may conflate Smart and Community Policing or miss Aadhaar's legal frameworkMisidentifies concepts, confuses CPGRAMS with state portals, treats Aadhaar only as identity card without governance linkage, or conflates policing initiatives completely
Theoretical anchor20%10Applies Riggs' fused-prismatic-diffracted model for central-local tension in (a); Amartya Sen's capability approach for inclusion in (b); and Wilson-Kelling broken windows theory or community-oriented policing philosophy in (c); integrates seamlesslyMentions theories superficially without application; or uses generic governance theories without specific linkage to question partsNo theoretical framework; or completely inappropriate theories cited without relevance to grievance redressal, identity governance, or policing
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): cites Sevottam pilot districts, PRAGATI integration; for (b): references LPG subsidy reform, MGNREGA attendance system, PM-KISAN; for (c): names specific models like Thiruvananthapuram's Maithri, Delhi's Parakram vans, or Hyderabad's integrated command centerGeneric mentions of Digital India or police modernization without specific schemes; vague references to DBT without program namesNo Indian examples; or factually wrong examples (e.g., attributing state portals to CPGRAMS, confusing policing initiatives)
Reform / policy angle20%10Critically evaluates CPGRAMS 2.0 reforms, Aadhaar-Voter ID linkage debate, Data Protection Bill implications; suggests Lokpal integration, offline Aadhaar enrollment camps, and police-community co-production models with implementation roadmapLists reforms without critical evaluation; suggestions are generic (more training, better infrastructure) without specificityNo reform discussion; or purely descriptive without critical stance on effectiveness, exclusion risks, or sustainability
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes all three parts into coherent thesis on technology-democracy balance in Indian governance; proposes integrated grievance-identity-security governance architecture; references 2nd ARC recommendations or SDG 16 for forward visionSummarizes each part separately without synthesis; generic conclusion on technology importance without specific integrationNo conclusion; or abrupt ending; or conclusion contradicts main arguments; purely repetitive without 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 2025 Paper II