Daily Answer Writing

Model Answer

Introduction

The withdrawal of general consent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by certain state governments in India poses significant challenges to the spirit of cooperative federalism.

Background on CBI and General Consent

The CBI, established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, is India’s premier investigative agency, tasked with tackling corruption and high-profile crimes. Traditionally, states have granted general consent to the CBI, allowing it to operate seamlessly within their jurisdictions. However, in recent years, several states have revoked this consent, citing concerns over the CBI’s alleged misuse for political vendetta.

Challenges to Cooperative Federalism

1. Jurisdictional Overlap: The Constitution designates ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ as state subjects, granting states exclusive authority over these matters. The CBI’s operations, as a central agency, often conflict with state police functions, leading to jurisdictional disputes and undermining the federal structure.
2. Impact on Investigations: The withdrawal of consent has resulted in significant delays in investigations. For instance, the CBI has been unable to probe over ₹21,000 crores worth of bank fraud cases due to pending requests for consent from various states. This not only hampers the agency’s effectiveness but also erodes public trust in the federal system.
3. Political Tensions: The politicization of the CBI has exacerbated tensions between state and central governments, particularly when different political parties govern at these levels. This has led to accusations of the CBI being used as a tool for political gain, further straining cooperative federalism.

Conclusion

The ongoing withdrawal of general consent by states highlights a critical challenge to cooperative federalism in India. It is essential to address these issues through reforms that enhance the CBI’s independence while respecting state autonomy. Ensuring that the CBI operates free from political interference is vital for maintaining the integrity of federal governance in India.

Model Answer

1. Own Revenue

Local self-governments can generate their own revenue through taxes and non-tax sources. State legislatures empower them to levy and collect various taxes, duties, tolls, and fees, which should ideally form a significant portion of their income.

2. Grants from the Union Government

The Union government allocates grants to local self-governments based on recommendations from the Finance Commission, established under Article 280 of the Constitution. This funding is crucial for sustaining local governance.

3. Loans and Grant-in-Aid from State Governments

State governments provide loans and grants from the Consolidated Fund to support essential services such as water supply, sanitation, and waste management.

4. Devolved Funds for State-Sponsored Schemes

Local bodies also receive financial support for decentralized planning and state-sponsored schemes, based on recommendations from the State Finance Commission (SFC).

Measures to Strengthen Financial Position

Despite these provisions, local self-governments face significant financial challenges. To enhance their financial status, the following measures are recommended:

1. Broadening Tax Jurisdiction

The Standing Committee on Rural Development suggests expanding the tax jurisdiction to include new areas, enabling PRIs and ULBs to diversify their revenue sources.

2. Improved Monitoring of Fund Distribution

The central government should enhance oversight of Finance Commission grants to ensure timely release and proper utilization of funds, as delays hinder effective governance.

3. Capacity Building

Investing in training existing staff and hiring new personnel will improve operational efficiency and resource management within local bodies.

4. Constitutional Amendments

Amending Article 280 to include local bodies in the divisible pool of resources would integrate them into the broader fiscal framework, enhancing their financial independence.

Model Answer

Introduction

Cabinet Committees, established under the Government of India Transaction of Business Rules, 1961, serve as crucial mechanisms within the Indian Parliamentary system. They help streamline decision-making and ensure collective responsibility among the Council of Ministers (CoM).

1. Collective Responsibility

• Constitutional Basis: Article 75(3) of the Indian Constitution states that the CoM is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This means that all ministers must support the decisions made by the Cabinet, regardless of their individual ministries.
• Joint Decisions: Decisions made by Cabinet Committees are considered joint decisions of the entire Cabinet. Consequently, every minister is obliged to uphold and defend these decisions both inside and outside Parliament, reinforcing the principle of collective responsibility.

2. Uniformity and Coordination

• Homogeneity of the Executive: Cabinet Committees play a vital role in ensuring uniformity within the Executive branch. By facilitating cooperation among various ministries, they help eliminate discrepancies that could arise due to differing departmental priorities.
• Decision-Making Support: These committees assist the government in making coordinated decisions, particularly in complex matters involving multiple ministries. For instance, the Economic Affairs Committee directs and coordinates government activities concerning economic policies, ensuring a unified approach.

3. Crisis Management

• Coordinated Responses: During national crises, Cabinet Committees are instrumental in managing responses by coordinating actions among various ministries. This collective effort is vital for effective governance, especially in times of significant challenges.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Cabinet Committees not only enhance the efficiency of the decision-making process but also reinforce the principles of collective responsibility and uniformity within the Executive. Their functioning is essential for maintaining coherence in governance and ensuring that the diverse interests of the ministries align with the overall objectives of the government.

Model Answer

Introduction

India’s Public Procurement and Project Management (PPPM) framework is critical for the efficient execution of government projects. However, the current system faces several challenges that necessitate a comprehensive overhaul.

1. Lack of Comprehensive Legislation

Despite the significant involvement of public funds, India lacks a comprehensive law that promotes a competitive, transparent, and efficient PPPM framework. This absence hinders accountability and oversight, leading to inefficiencies in managing public resources.

2. Growing Share of Public Procurement

India’s public procurement market is estimated to be between 20 and 22 percent of the GDP, roughly $500 billion annually. Given this scale, the need for a robust procurement framework becomes even more pressing to enhance competitiveness and transparency in public spending.

3. Complex Regulatory Framework

The three-tier governance structure, comprising various ministries, statutory bodies, and public sector undertakings (PSUs), creates a convoluted regulatory environment. This complexity often leads to inefficiencies in public procurement processes, as different entities operate under varying objectives and rules.

4. Inefficiency of the L1 Method

The Least Cost Selection (L1) method, which chooses the lowest bidder, can result in suboptimal delivery for high-impact and technologically complex projects. Studies, such as the Quality Council of India report on highway development, indicate that this approach often neglects quality and performance, leading to delays and increased lifecycle costs.

Proposed Measures for Improvement

1. Legislative Backing: Providing legal support to the General Financial Rules to ensure a transparent and accountable procurement process.
2. Enhancing Transparency: Implementing debriefing procedures for unsuccessful bidders to promote the ‘Right to Know.’
3. Simplifying Procedures: Streamlining processes and enforcing stricter blacklisting rules for corrupt firms.
4. Promoting E-Procurement: Utilizing platforms like the Central Public Procurement Portal and the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) to enhance efficiency.
5. Capacity Building: Conducting periodic training for procurement officials to ensure they are well-versed in best practices.

Revamping the PPPM framework will facilitate faster, more efficient, and transparent execution of government projects, ultimately improving governance and public service delivery.

Model Answer

Introduction

Social accountability initiatives are crucial for enhancing governance and empowering citizens. However, their implementation faces significant challenges that necessitate adequate measures for effective institutionalization.

Challenges and Vulnerabilities

1. Resistance to Reform: Social accountability initiatives often threaten vested interests, leading to substantial resistance from those benefiting from the status quo (World Bank, 2013). This resistance can stifle reform efforts and diminish the potential for change.
2. Risk of Collusion: There is a persistent risk of collusion among actors involved, which can manifest as data manipulation and false claims regarding accountability efforts (UNDP, 2016). Such actions undermine the integrity and effectiveness of accountability initiatives.
3. Co-option of Citizens: Powerful community members may co-opt citizens, discouraging them from speaking out against corruption (Bovens, 2007). This co-option can create a culture of silence that inhibits accountability.
4. Disruption by Vested Interests: Engaging in social accountability can expose citizens to threats and intimidation from those benefiting from a lack of accountability, deterring active participation (Transparency International, 2015).
5. Lack of Government Support: Citizens often face inadequate support from government agencies when challenging entrenched power dynamics, which further complicates collective action efforts (OECD, 2018).
6. Ineffective Grievance Redressal: The absence of timely and efficient follow-up mechanisms on social accountability findings hampers the effectiveness of initiatives (Houtzager & Lavalle, 2009).

Policy Measures for Institutionalization

To effectively address these challenges, several policy measures are necessary:

• Decentralization: Implementing detailed activity mapping for schemes based on the principle of subsidiarity can enhance local accountability (World Bank, 2013).
• Information and Awareness: Strict enforcement of proactive disclosure under the RTI Act can empower citizens and facilitate greater transparency (RTI Act, 2005).
• Capacity Building: Comprehensive training strategies for both citizens and officials are essential to strengthen participation and effectiveness (UNDP, 2016).
• Grievance Redressal Mechanisms: Establishing clear procedures with strict timelines for grievance redressal can enhance accountability (OECD, 2018).
• Mandatory Inclusion of Social Accountability: Ensuring that every scheme document includes specific social accountability tools can institutionalize these initiatives effectively (Transparency International, 2015).
• Periodic Assessments: Regular evaluations by independent assessors can help maintain the integrity and effectiveness of social accountability mechanisms (Bovens, 2007).

Conclusion

In conclusion, addressing the vulnerabilities in social accountability is essential for enhancing governance and empowering citizens. Implementing these measures will foster an environment conducive to accountability, ultimately improving service delivery and democratic engagement.